Russell v. Agar
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Charles W. Slack, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff brought his action against defendant Agar as executor of the estate of Joseph McDonough, deceased, and for cause of action averred the following facts: For several years prior to the fourteenth day of September, 1894, he had been in the employ of Joseph McDonough in the capacity of salesman and collector. McDonough’s business was that of a wholesale and retail dealer in coal in the city and county of San Francisco. By reason of his experience, extended acquaintance, and personal influence, plaintiff had created and controlled a large amount of McDonough’s business. A short time…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Owens v. McNallyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Montgomery v. BreedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by7 opinions
- Burke v. MeadIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
- Bedal v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Stewart v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Lich v. CarlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Beard v. MelvinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.