Legal Opinion

Meehan v. Nelson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 8, 1905No. 1,125PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge

Appellants claim that “the finding that plaintiffs performed the work is wholly unsustained by the evidence.” It will be observed that under the contract the three holes were to be sunk to bedrock. Counsel for appellants admit that the testimony in relation to holes 1 and 2 is clear, positive, direct, and certain. They were sunk “to bedrock.” The controversy between the parties is confined solely to hole 3. Was it sunk to bedrock ?

O. A. Nelson, one of the plaintiffs in the court below, testified, among other things, as follows: “Q. Did you do anything under that arrangement in the way of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Willard v. TayloeSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  3. Crawford v. NealSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  4. Furrer v. FerrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  5. Stuart v. HaydenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nelson v. MeehanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
  2. Nygard v. DickinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API