Legal Opinion
Woods v. Watson
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 6, 1941No. Civ. No. 2778PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MUNDO, J.,
pro tern. — L. E. Dadmun was employed by Inez Watson to represent her in a law suit. After judgment was given in said law suit Inez Watson agreed in writing to pay Dadmun for his legal services. Dadmun assigned to Percival E. Woods the contract and his interest in the money due thereunder. Inez Watson did not pay the money and Woods brought this action to recover. Inez Watson filed an answer, counterclaim and cross-complaint. Dadmun was joined with Woods as a cross-defendant and they filed a joint answer to the cross-complaint in which, inter alia, they alleged : *401Alvin Poore and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Zellner v. WassmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Walsh v. MckeenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Burd v. DowningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Cullen v. FosterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- Trumbo v. Bank of BerkeleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947