Legal Opinion

Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 6, 1905No. 33PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment in an action to foreclose a street-paving lien. A general demurrer to the complaint was overruled with leave to answer. The court found that subsequently the parties filed the following stipulation :—

“It is stipulated and agreed that the defendants in the above-entitled actions need not file an answer in said actions, but that the said actions shall abide the result of the action of the Pacific Paving Company against J. L. Mowbray, 5163, and whatever judgment may be finally entered in said actions shall also be entered in each of the above-entitled cases, whether the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Haskins v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Robinson v. MerrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Buckman v. HatchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Davis v. LezinskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Cook v. Lion Fire Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hibernia Savings Etc. Soc. v. WaymireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Cole v. ColeIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Ampuero v. LuceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Minehan v. SilveriaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Clemens v. GreggCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

8 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