Legal Opinion

Cutten v. Pearsall

California Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1905No. S.F. No. 2912PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

The complaint in the action under consideration contains three counts: The first is upon an express contract, a copy of which is set forth; the second is a common count in assumpsit; the third is a common count for money had and received. The contract set forth in the first count of the complaint is as follows:—

“Eureka, California, Dec. 29th, 1899.
“It is agreed by C. E. Pearsall and David Cutten, that his commissions for services rendered in securing lands in T. 8 N., R. 1 E. and T. 8 N., R. 2 E., Humboldt Meridian, and for all services heretofore rendered by him, and for all services…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Otten v. SpreckelsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  2. Corvin v. Smead Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Montgomery v. EmpeyWyoming Supreme Court · 1927
  4. McCarthy v. MorrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. Shea-Bouqueraz Co. v. HartmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912

4 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