Legal Opinion
Bowyer v. Burgess
California Supreme Court
Decided May 10, 1960No. L. A. No. 25769PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DOGLING, J. pro tem.*
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Waliga in an action to recover approximately $5,000. The only basis for recovery against these respondents was the following agreement in writing:
“Fullerton, Calif. April 21,1956.
“It has been proven and is acknowledged by the undersigned that James Burgess has been for all of his employment *99period with Bastanehury Water Co. withholding for his own use certain funds which were the property of the company.
“Subject to further audit, the exact amount is unknown but [it] is acknowledged that the sum may…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Estate of WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Morris v. Reclamation District No. 108California Supreme Court · 1941
- Woodham v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Thom v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Hutchinson v. HutchinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- West Pico Furniture Co. v. Pacific Finance LoansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. ChuidianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Kallen v. DelugCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Knapp v. City of Newport BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. JoyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.