Davies Henderson Lumber Co. v. Gottschalk
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
The respondent, Ann Twohey, being the owner of certain real estate, attempted to contract with the respondents, Strange and Gottschalk, for the construction of a dwelling-house thereon. The contract price for constructing the house was more than one thousand dollars, and the contract was not in writing, or filed in the recorder’s office. For these reasons it was *643wholly void. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1183,1184.) Strange and Gottschalk subcontracted the construction of the house to one Tittle, who was a party defendant in the court below, but whose death has been suggested in this court. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Giant Powder Co. v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- Goss v. StrelitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Southern California Lumber Co. v. SchmittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Germania Building & Loan Ass'n v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Cahoon v. LevyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by22 opinions
- McMenomy v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Humboldt Lumber Mill Co. v. CrispCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Hookway v. ThompsonWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Reed v. NortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Harris v. HarrisColorado Court of Appeals · 1897
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.