Bainbridge v. Lachenmaier
California Court of Appeal
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
- Janke v. McMahonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Hoffman v. Guy M. Rush Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
- Delannoy v. QuetuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rosland v. ConstantineauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Young v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986