Legal Opinion
Stansbury v. Frazer
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 10, 1920No. Civ. No. 2106PublishedCited by 1 opinion
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The controversy is over the satisfaction of a claim of plaintiff for the sum of $2,332. On December 29, 1915, one James L. Frazer entered into a contract with the county of Los Angeles for the construction of a highway known and designated as “Road Improvement District No. 39.” For the work to be done by said Frazer the said county of Los Angeles promised to issue its bonds in the amount of $19,495 as provided in the certain act known as the Road District Improvement Act of 1907. The work was completed by Frazer, and was accepted by the board of supervisors of said county; the bonds were…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Clink v. ThurstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Associated Oil Co. v. Commary-Peterson Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
- Miles v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Flandreau v. DowneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Suisun Lumber Co. v. Fairfield School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Minnich v. MinnichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932