Legal Opinion
Peek v. Steinberg
California Supreme Court
Decided June 17, 1912No. S.F. No. 5421PublishedCited by 24 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Frohman & Jacobs, and Louis H. Brownstone, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of an agreement alleged to have been entered into between plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants Steinberg and Strauss on the other. The agreement relied upon was in the form of a letter addressed by plaintiff to said defendants. It is set out in full in the complaint as follows:
“San Francisco, June 4th, 1906. “Messrs. Steinberg and Strauss.
“In accordance with our talk and understanding in organizing an incorporated Co. for the carrying on of the lumber business, the Copartnership known as The Greater San Fran cisco Lumber…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Daley v. RussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Brinkerhoff-Farris Trust & Savings Co. v. Home Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Alexander v. RelfeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Moffitt v. HerefordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Barnes v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Kirk v. CulleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Hind v. Oriental Products Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Clifton v. TombCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1927
- Atkinson v. District Bond Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Tulare County Power Co. v. Pacific Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.