Legal Opinion

Bainbridge v. Lachenmaier

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 19, 1932No. Docket No. 748PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCOVEL, J., pro tem.

The complaint in this action alleges that on March 3, 1931, defendant employed plaintiff to drill a water-well at a specified price per lineal foot, the defendant to furnish all pipe and casing; that the well was drilled to a depth of 423 feet, but that defendant refused to pay for the same. Defendant filed his answer and a pleading designated a cross-complaint, admitting that the contract for drilling the well had been entered into, but alleging that the contract was in writing dated December 15, 1930, and providing for completion of the well not later than March 5, 1931.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Janke v. McMahonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  2. Hoffman v. Guy M. Rush Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  3. Delannoy v. QuetuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rosland v. ConstantineauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Young v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API