Steiger Terra Cotta & Pottery Works v. City of Sonoma
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. James W. Oates, Bishop & Hoefler, and Alfred J. Harwood, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
This is an action for the recovery of the possession of specific personal property or, if delivery cannot be had, for the value thereof.
■ The facts are not disputed so far as they concern the main question involved.
One MacQuiddy entered into a written contract with defendant, city of Sonoma, to erect a city hall. This contract was duly recorded and its validity is not questioned. MacQuiddy entered into a written contract with plaintiff whereby plaintiff agreed to “furnish and set on the roof of the New City Hall, ... as per plans and specifications by architect, A. C. Lutgens, all of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Golden Gate Lumber Co. v. SahrbacherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Cameron v. Orleans & Jefferson Railway Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1902
- Los Angeles Pressed Brick Co. v. HigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- McDonald v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Chandler v. De GraffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
- Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1953
- Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
- Hogan Lumber Co. v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Quartaroli v. City of SonomaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912