Legal Opinion

Henningsen v. Howard

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 17, 1953No. Civ. 15348PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial after judgment for defendants by the court sitting without a jury. The- amended complaint contained four causes of action, to the following effect: The first that Hoe Howard, Meyer Winkleman, David Barnard and Alec Barnard individually and as copartners doing business under the name of Barnard Brothers Textile Division in June, 1949, in New York City bought and received from plaintiff’s assignor textiles on the price of which $7,787.84 remained due and owing; the second that plaintiff’s assignor on September 21, 1949, in the Supreme Court…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Brooks v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Giles v. VetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  3. Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Parker v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
  5. White v. . EisemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1892

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Boynton v. McKalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  2. Tiburon National Bank v. WagnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  3. Roberson v. J. C. Penney Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. De Felice v. TaborCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Arditto v. PutnamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

4 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