Legal Opinion

Nowell v. Oswald

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 31, 1929No. Docket Nos. 5342, 6031PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CRAIL, J., pro tem.

The sole question presented on appeal is the correctness of the trial court’s decision that appellant Oswald was a joint adventurer with others in the production of a theatrical exhibition and therefore liable to employees for claims for labor. We are satisfied that the ruling of the trial court was correct. (Westcott v. Gilman, 170 Cal. 562 [Ann. Cas. 1916E, 437, 150 Pac. 777]; Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302 [37 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109]; Leake v. City of Venice, 50 Cal. App. 462 [190 Pac. 440].)

There is an all-important difference in construing relationships of this kind…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Westcott v. GilmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Tuttle v. BlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Chapman v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Leake v. City of VeniceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Sime v. MaloufCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  2. Hansen v. BurfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Wallace v. SinclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. Hayward's v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  5. United Farmers Assn. v. SakiotaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

5 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