Legal Opinion
Bowline v. Gries
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 25, 1950No. Civ. 4053PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHEPARD, J. pro tem.
Plaintiff sued to recover $900 alleged unpaid balance for the drilling of a water well. Judgment was for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
13 January, 1947, plaintiff agreed by written contract to drill a water well on defendant’s land. The contract recites that the plaintiff “contractor is skilled in the practice and possesses the appliances for doing such work,” and “all tools, machinery, labor and fuel required for said work is to be furnished by contractor.” The well was drilled to a depth of 900 feet. The price was $6.00 per foot, totaling $5,400. Four thousand five…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Loving & Evans v. BlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Hoyt v. Board of Civil Service CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Roscoe Moss Co. v. JenkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Conderback, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Fraenkel v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Johnson v. MattoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Kelly v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- People v. VisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.