Nowell v. Oswald
California Court of Appeal
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
- Westcott v. GilmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Tuttle v. BlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Chapman v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Leake v. City of VeniceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sime v. MaloufCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Hansen v. BurfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Wallace v. SinclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Hayward's v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- United Farmers Assn. v. SakiotaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.