Legal Opinion

Philip Wolf Co. v. King Starrett

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 14, 1905No. 64PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

Action to recover damages for the breach of an alleged contract for the sale of hops by defendants to plaintiffs. The court found that no contract was entered into between the parties, as alleged in the complaint, or at all, and defendants had judgment. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from the order denying their motion for a new trial.

The judgment of this court entered on September 30, 1905, was vacated and set aside for the reasons that, upon suggestion of diminution of the record made before submission of the cause, but not called to the attention of the court when the opinion was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Niles v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Wristen v. BowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Four Oil Co. v. United Oil ProducersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Pacific Rolling Mill Co. v. Riverside & Arlington Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Harvey v. DuffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ennis Brown Co. v. W. S. Hurst & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1905
  2. People v. Surety InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API