Legal Opinion
Bourne v. Root
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 23, 1932No. Docket No. 729PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCOVEL, J., pro tem.
The complaint in this action sets up a promissory note executed by defendants to plaintiff alleges nonpayment of the same and prays for judgment thereon. Defendants’ answer admitted liability on the note. Defendants filed a cross-complaint upon a quantum meruit for services rendered to the plaintiff and the Yosemite Portland Cement Company. The Yosemite Portland Cement Company was made a party to the action upon the filing of the cross-complaint and both cross-defendants filed an answer thereto in the nature of a general denial. At the trial of the matter it was stipulated…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Extension Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1901
- Wickersham Banking Co. v. NicholasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Huffman v. KnappCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
3Cited by7 opinions
- Meyer v. Glenmoor Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- People v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Snyder v. Security First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Sealand Investment Corp. v. Emprise Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1961
- Moore v. PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.