Legal Opinion

Ah Tong v. Earle Fruit Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1896No. Sac. No. 2PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order denying a new trial. M. K. Harris, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Britt, C.

Plaintiff, a Chinese, early in August, 1893, delivered a quantity of pears to defendant, a corporation, to be sold upon commission; he alleged in his complaint that defendant, as part of its contract with him, guaranteed to him a net return of fifteen dollars per ton for the pears; that he delivered 184,190 pounds of the fruit to defendant, and was entitled to receive therefor at the rate guaranteed the sum of $1006.44; that defendant paid only the sum of $550, leaving a balance due of $456.44, for which he sues. Defendant denied the guaranty, and set up as a counterclaim that the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Burns v. Sennett & MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Goodwyn v. GoodwynSupreme Court of Georgia · 1856
  3. Williams v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Brumley v. FlintCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Frey v. LowdenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Sime v. MaloufCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. People v. SinghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. People v. BellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. De Franco v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1955

14 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