Coplew v. Durand
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of" the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff had entered into a contract with defendants to do the painting, polishing, enameling—in short the “finishing” of the woodwork and floors of defendants’ house. By the terms of the contract, progress payments were to be made, seventy-five per cent of the contract price to be paid on completion, and twenty-five per cent thirty-six days after final completion. The progress payments were made as in the contract provided, and this action is brought to recover the twenty-five per cent final payment which defendants refused to make.
The contract provided that the work was to be “strictly…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kihlberg v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. SeymourSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Holmes v. RichetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Katz v. BedfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Loup v. California Southern RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- American-Hawaiian Engineering & Construction Co. v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Tiffany v. Pacific Sewer Pipe Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Ahlgren v. WalshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Patrick J. Ruane, Inc. v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.