Legal Opinion
George Herz & Co. v. Solt
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 15, 1937No. Civ. 1653PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.
Plaintiff sued to recover a balance of $1,067.55 alleged to be due for grading and oiling a portion of Fifth Street in the city of San Bernardino. Judgment went for defendants and this appeal followed. In its opening brief plain'' T thus states the questions involved on this appeal:
“(aj Is there a true option contained in an agreement which provides that one party shall do a certain piece of street work under the direction of a second party, the value of the work to be of a fixed minimum, or more, at the option of the second party, the work to be paid for at cost plus ten per cent?
“(b) If…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Witherow v. United American InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Burrell v. Capt. H. A. Crow Post No. 884California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Leake v. City of VeniceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- O'Connor v. HooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Moss v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- La Jolla Casa deManana v. HopkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Wall v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Richards v. Pacific Southwest Discount Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1941
- Merrill v. Continental Assurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962
- Fedele v. DowlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.