Legal Opinion

Biurrun v. Elizalde

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 16, 1923No. Civ. No. 2604PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of defendant Ramirez for a nonsuit.

The action is for money had and received. The plaintiff testified: “On -the twenty-sixth day of December, 1919, I had business dealings with the defendant Elizalde. . . . Defendant Ramirez was present at that time. I offered to let Mr. Elizalde run my sheep until he could sell them, and agreed with him that I would pay him $2,176 as expenses for running them, and when he sold the sheep he was to pay me $8 per head and beep for himself all that he received over that sum. ... I had 728…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Estate of CasparCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Freese v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Heydenfeldt v. JacobsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  4. First Nat'l Bank of Modesto v. WakefieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Smith v. Farmers' and Merchants' BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Biurrun v. ElizaldeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  2. Lynch v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Lich v. CarlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Lich v. CarlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API