Legal Opinion

McManus v. Larson

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 20, 1932No. Docket No. 6913PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TAPPAAN, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff as assignee of an attorney instituted this action to recover from defendants the sum of $4,000 alleged to be due upon an “open, mutual and current account”. On March 29, 1929, defendants caused to be served upon plaintiff a demand for a bill of particulars of the items of the account sued upon. Thereafter and on April 8, 1929, plaintiff having failed to serve or file a bill of particulars as demanded, defendants’ attorney communicated with one of plaintiff’s attorneys, and called his attention to the fact that more than five days had elapsed since the service of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Waybright v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Auzerais v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Waite v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
  4. McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Toon v. Pickwick Stages, Northern Division, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1924

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Elston v. City of TurlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Banchero v. CoffisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Elston v. City of TurlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State Ex Rel. Brophy v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Burton v. Santa Barbara Nat'l BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

3 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