Legal Opinion
Nead v. Specimen Hill Mining Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 4, 1942No. Civ. 6675PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,198.37, and interest from July 20, 1940, for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant, and for the further sum of $975.79, as the value of mining machinery and equipment which were furnished by the plaintiff to J. 0. Gillice, a lessee of a mining claim, upon a conditional sale contract, and subsequently converted by the defendant after it had purchased the claim. From that judgment the has appealed.
It is conceded the defendant owes plaintiff $482.37, upon the unpaid portion of the purchase price of the merchandise. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Teater v. Good Hope Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Dauch v. GinsburgCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Bond Investment Co. v. BlakeleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District v. FordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- P. J. Freiermuth Co. v. FaustinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
3Cited by6 opinions
- Carpenter v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Palos Verdes Properties v. County Sanitation District No. 5California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Camp v. MatichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Sipperly v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Smidt v. OverholtzerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.