Legal Opinion

Oakdale Mercantile Co. v. Baer

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 23, 1932No. Docket No. 8573PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $3,511.15 alleged to be owing to it by defendant under an agreement entered into between them. This agreement is set forth in the complaint. Defendant answered the complaint, denying any indebtedness to plaintiff and filed a cross-complaint in which he sought to reform said agreement. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $3,250, and denying the relief prayed for by the cross-complaint for said reformation. Defendant filed a. motion for a new trial, which the court failed to pass upon within sixty days after its filing, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wilbur v. WilburCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers Assn.California Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Withers v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Luckehe v. First Nat. Bk. of MarysvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Andrews v. WaldoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Taff v. Atlas Assurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
  2. California Trust Co. v. CohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Central Mfrs. Mut. Ins. v. Jim Dandy Markets, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API