Legal Opinion

Bartlett v. Pacific National Bank

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 1, 1952No. Civ. 14943PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $14,693.42 plus interest thereon at 7 per cent per annum from July 31, 1946, and costs.

Questions Presented

1. Does the contract for attorney’s fees provide a lien?

2. Were the escrowed bonds those of the corporation?

3. Sufficiency of the findings.

4. Statute of limitations.

5. Rule of damages.

Facts

This litigation is based on a contract entered into by Provident Irrigation District Bondholders Protective Committee and Provident Land Corporation with plaintiff, an attorney at law. The Provident Irrigation District had defaulted its bonds.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pashley v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Bennett v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Wagner v. SariottiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Rosenberg v. LawrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Nighbert v. First National Bank of BakersfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Fifield Manor v. FinstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Isrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Cetenko v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  5. In the Matter of Pacific Far East Line, Inc., Debtor. Joseph M. Alioto v. Official Creditor CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981

10 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