Legal Opinion

Bailey Ornamental Iron Co. v. Goldschmidt

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 14, 1917No. Civ. No. 2238PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.

Action to enforce a mechanic’s lien claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

In March, 1911, the defendant Emma M. Goldschmidt, being about to cause the erection of a dwelling-house on land owned by her in the city of Los Angeles, entered into an oral contract with the Imperial Iron & Machine Company, under which that company agreed to construct for her a certain iron balcony as a part of the proposed building. The price for the work was to be $268; no time for the payment being named in the agreement. Mrs. Goldschmidt paid an installment of this price on May 18 and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Barnitz v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Spinney v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Welsh v. CrossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Andrews & Johnson Co. v. AtwoodIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Kendall v. FaderIllinois Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. King v. LeavyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API