Legal Opinion

Laidlaw v. Marye

California Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1901No. S.F. No. 1791PublishedCited by 27 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff’s complaint charged in two counts. By the first, he sued in quantum meruit et valebat for the reasonable value of materials furnished and labor performed by his assignor, which he alleged to be $2,049. Of this sum there remained unpaid $572.25, for which he demanded judgment. By the second, he pleaded an express contract with defendant, under which his assignor was to refloor and repair the floor of the second story of the Nevada Stables for the agreed price of $2,049, of which defendant had only paid the sum of $1,536.75. For the remainder, judgment was sought. Defendant denied all…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Perry v. QuackenbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Kellogg v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Marchant v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Rebman v. San Gabriel Valley Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Barker v. DohertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Lamb v. WahlenmaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Pacific Lumber Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Roystone Co. v. DarlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Whepley Oil Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Prince v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

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

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

Powered by the Exa API