Gordon v. Tejunga Water & Power Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
ELLISON, P. J., pro tem
The complaint is in four counts. In the first count, after stating the corporate capacity of the defendant, it is alleged: “That the defendant employed the plaintiff to superintend and take charge of the management of the irrigation plant of the defendant at a salary of five dollars per day, and the plaintiff began under said employment on February 23, 1914, and continued to work for the defendant up to and including May 1, 1915.
“That for said labor so performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, the defendant has failed and neglected to pay any part thereof though…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Carlson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Ex parte ShobertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Poetker v. LowryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- Larkin v. BarkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928