Dellapiazza v. Foley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County and from an order denying a new trial, John Caldwell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
to recover from defendants, as Action copartners in the business of mining, a balance of eight hundred and fifteen dollars and seventy cents alleged to be due plaintiff for labor performed for defendants at their request between the twenty-fifth day of December, 1890, and November, 15, 1891. The plaintiff had judgment for the full amount of his demand. As to defendant Foley, the judgment ivas by default upon his failure to answer. Bohannan alone appeals from the judgment, and also from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
It is not questioned that plaintiff was employed by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Tolman v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Holton v. NobleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Jones v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Stuart v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Sather Banking Co. v. Arthur R. Briggs Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Savings Bank of San Diego v. Central Market Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- London & San Francisco Bank, Ltd. v. ParrottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Menzel v. PrimmCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Gardner v. ShreveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.