Legal Opinion
Bloom v. Hazzard
California Supreme Court
Decided October 2, 1894No. 19424PublishedCited by 15 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order refusing a new trial.- The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Belcher, C.
The plaintiff, as assignee of one Charles M. Stetson, brought this action to recover the sum of $844.90, balance alleged to be due and unpaid for services rendered by Stetson as constable in the levying upon and sale of certain real property under an execution issued upon a justice’s court judgment in favor of the defendant.
Before any services were rendered Stetson executed and delivered to defendant an agreement in writing, reading as follows:
*311“San Diego, Cal., Sept. 21, 1891.
“I, Charles M. Stetson, constable of San Diego township, California, agree that I will levy on the land…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reedy v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by15 opinions
- Vitagraph, Inc. v. Liberty Theatres Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Remsberg v. Hackney Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and L. E. Dixon Company v. Van Harris, an Individual, Doing Business as Harris & Sons, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and L. E. Dixon Company v. Paramount Truck Rental, Inc., and Van Harris, an Individual Doing Business as Harris & Sons, Paramount Truck Rental, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and L. E. Dixon CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Gallagher v. Equitable Gas Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- National Automobile Insurance v. WinterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.