Legal Opinion

Kessler v. Young

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 19, 1923No. Civ. No. 3780Published

1Opinion of the Court

SHENK, J., pro tem.

The plaintiff Mae H. Kessler brought this action alleging in the first count a balance due of $450 on an express contract for services rendered and $93 for money advanced; in the second count a balance of $70 due on an assigned claim for services rendered by the plaintiff Prank P. Kessler, her husband, and in the third count a claim for $50 assigned to her by one Edith J. Thom, on a contract for services by the latter as surety on an undertaking in claim and delivery.

At the beginning of the trial Mrs. Kessler was granted leave to amend by joining her husband as a party…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Murphy v. BennettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Carpenter v. FurreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Mendocino County v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  4. People v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  5. People v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API