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

  1. Witherow v. United American InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. Burrell v. Capt. H. A. Crow Post No. 884California Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. Leake v. City of VeniceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. O'Connor v. HooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Moss v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. La Jolla Casa deManana v. HopkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. Wall v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Richards v. Pacific Southwest Discount Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Merrill v. Continental Assurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. Fedele v. DowlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

1 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