Legal Opinion

Kelly v. Hill

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 4, 1951No. Civ. 4311PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMussell, J.

Plaintiff, who was conducting a concrete pipe irrigation business in Kern County, entered into a contract with defendants for the trenching, laying and backfilling of a cement pipeline upon agricultural lands owned by the defendants. The pipeline was constructed to irrigate crops to be grown on the land and the work was to be done for a fixed contract price. The reasonable value of the materials furnished and the labor and services performed was $3,899.45. Upon the failure of the defendants to pay for the work and materials, plaintiff commenced the instant action to foreclose a lien filed…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mantzoros v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  2. Bowline v. GriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. The Robin GoodfellowDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1927

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Fraenkel v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Currie v. StolowitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Davis v. Pine Mountain Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  4. Salter v. Kindom Uranium CorporationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. Cnty. of San Diego, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

11 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