Legal Opinion

Sparling v. Housman

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 20, 1950No. Civ. 3796PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMussell, J.

Action on building contract. Plaintiff and defendants on May 13, 1946, entered into a written agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to construct for the defendants a dwelling house and garage on real property situated in the city of Bakersfield. The contract provided that the total cost of construction would be $7,800 and that the plaintiff, a building contractor, would be paid on the following basis: First payment when the form was up; second when the plaster was finished; third when the notice of completion was filed; and fourth payment 30 days after the filing of such notice. Defendants…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Dillard v. McKnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Noble v. Kertz & Sons Feed & Fuel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Otey v. Carmel Sanitary DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Carter v. QuickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
  2. Sanfran Co. v. Rees Blow Pipe Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Bonetti v. Double Play TavernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Bonetti v. Double Play TavernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API