Gray v. Bekins
California Supreme Court
APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. John J. Van Nostrand, Judge. Modified and affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.
The partial destruction of an unfinished building by an earthquake on April 18, 1906, engendered the controversy which culminated in the present action. Plaintiffs had constructed the first and second stories of a six-story brick and concrete warehouse, which they had contracted to build for defendants, when the portions erected were damaged by earthquake on the date above mentioned. When plaintiff H. N. Gray, defendant Martin Bekins, the architect, and brick contractor met at the building a few; weeks after the earthquake and examined the structure to ascertain the damages, it was decided…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- American-Hawaiian Engineering & Construction Co. v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Adams v. BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Courteney v. Standard Box Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Lineman v. SchmidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Levy-Zentner Co. v. SOUTHERN PAC. TRANSPORTATIONCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Uzyel v. KadishaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Conderback, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.