Wiles v. Hammer
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
This action is for the recovery of a money judgment against the defendant. The complaint contains three causes of action. The first, upon a contract for the drilling of a well; the second, for the value of certain well-casing, and the third, for services performed in the development work on wells belonging to the defendant. The answer consists of a denial of the allegations of the complaint and affirmative matter in the nature of an affirmative defense to each of the three causes of action set out in the complaint. Defendant also filed a cross-complaint, but no point seems to be made by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Southern Pac. R.R. v. DufourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Auerbach v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hicks v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Johndrow v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Central Heights Improvement Co. v. Memorial Parks, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1940
- Austin v. Harry E. Jones, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1939
- Mardesich v. C. J. Hendry Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.