Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Klinke
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 28, 1919No. Civ. No. 2005PublishedCited by 11 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
The action is in claim and delivery arising out of the contract of purchase and sale set forth in the complaint as follows:
“Ceres, Cal., B. D. A. Box 393.
“3/3, 1917.
“Hamilton & Henderson,
“Los Angeles, California.
‘ ‘ Gentlemen: This contract confirms sale to you this day of our/my entire 1917 crop of choice recleaned Black Bye beans from 30 acres on own Banch in Stanislaus County, about 5 miles So of Ceres, less none of the crop which is reserved fob rental, and less - sacks reserved for seed, at five cents per pound net weight, P. O. B. ears or warehouse Ceres. We/I estimate the quantity…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Shoemaker v. AckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- The Elgee Cotton CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Borland v. Nevada BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Arques v. WassonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Black v. Solano Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- MacRae v. HeathCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Turner, Kuhn & Fraser, Inc. v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Warfield v. BassoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Merrill v. California Petroleum Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.