Stimson v. Dunham, Carrigan, Hayden Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a' judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing to annul conclusions of law and to modify ¡judgment. [Waldo M. York, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
COOPER, C.
Appeal from judgment and from an order denying appellant’s motion to annul conclusions of law and to modify judgment.
The complaint alleges that plaintiffs’ testate, in September, 1900, entered into certain contracts with appellant, by the terms of which appellant was to furnish material and perform the labor in putting in certain pipes, pump, and fittings in the basement of the Stimson Block and Douglass Building in the city of Los Angeles for the sum of $1,968. That appellant in due time entered upon the performance of said contracts, and completed them on the —— day of June, 1901.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- C.A. MacOmber v. L. M. BigelowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Easterbrook v. FarquharsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Brill v. De TurkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Turner v. StrenzelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hansen v. CovellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Burnett v. GlasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- MacIsaac & Menke Co. v. Cardox Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1961
- Rogers v. Springfield Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.