Compressed Air MacHinery Co. v. West San Pablo Land & Water Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. Frank J. Murasky, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
Appeal from judgment for plaintiff and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
The action was brought to recover the possession of certain machinery, to wit, an air compressor and receiver, and their connections, or the sum of $1,200, the value thereof, in case a delivery cannot be had, and damages in the sum of $673.
The action was tried before a jury, which first returned a verdict for plaintiff for the recovery of the property, and for damages at the rate of $50 per month for the detention thereof, or in case'a delivery cannot be had, for the sum of $1,200, as the value of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Altoona Quicksilver Mining Co. v. Integral Quicksilver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- O'Neill v. Thomas Day Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Aguirre v. AlexanderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Edwards v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hughes v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dobbie v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Lucas v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Farmer v. Mountain Lake ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928