Legal Opinion

Lichtenthaler v. Samson Iron Works

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 27, 1916No. Civ. No. 2011PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover a sum of money as damages alleged to have been sustained through the failure of defendant to furnish an engine and pump and erect the same as contracted for. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint, in which the general ground of objection was first stated that sufficient facts were not set forth to constitute a cause of action. The complaint was also demurred to on the ground .that it attempted to state two causes of action, and was ambiguous and uncertain for the same reason. The superior court sustained the demurrer, and plaintiff declining to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Luitweiler Pumping Engine Co. v. Ukiah Water & Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
  2. Snyder v. Holt Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Drumar Mining Co. v. Morris Ravine Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939
  2. Starr Piano Co. v. MartinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Cohn v. Bessemer Gas Engine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Lamb v. WardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  5. Advance Rumely Thresher Co. v. McCoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

1 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