Legal Opinion

Paladini v. Municipal Markets Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1921No. L. A. No. 6556PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. William M. Morse, Jr., and Hoefler, Cook & Snyder for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtSloane, J.

The plaintiff in this action was engaged in the wholesale trade of selling fish. He had branch establishments operating such business in various cities of California, one of which was at San Francisco and one at Monterey. Within two years prior to June 29, 1917, he had sold fish and fish products to the defendant, a dealer in Los Angeles, to the amount of $1,043.75. While all of said amount was due and owing, plaintiff brought suit in the justice’s court - of Los Angeles against the defendant and obtained judgment therein on an account for $231.82, for part of the goods which went to make up…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Secor v. . SturgisNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
  2. California Savings & Loan Society v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Cook v. . ConnersNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  4. Bingham v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Van Horne v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Vella v. HudginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Wulfjen v. DoltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Martin v. HoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Baker v. BDO Seidman, L.L.P.District Court, N.D. California · 2005
  5. Williams v. KrumsiekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

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