Legal Opinion

Gee Chong Pong v. Harris

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 18, 1918No. Civ. No. 1862PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

The second amended complaint sets forth an action in two counts. The first is based upon the sale of two certain gold nuggets, one of the value of $135 and the other of the value of $75, “upon an understanding and agreement between plaintiffs and said Aaron Harris (defendant’s intestate) that plaintiffs should have a lien upon said personal property as security for the return thereof to plaintiffs or the payment to plaintiffs of the value thereof.” It is alleged “that said Aaron Harris never returned the said personal property or paid plaintiffs the value thereof, and ever since the said…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Western States Life Ins. Co. v. LockwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Perkins v. OnyettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Warren v. McGillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Scott Stamp Etc. Co., Ltd. v. LeakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  5. Maier Packing Co. v. FreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Osborn v. City of WhittierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Hoffman v. City of Palm SpringsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Sime v. HunterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. McCauley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  5. Behymer v. SchraderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

2 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