Legal Opinion

Hancock v. Clark

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 26, 1922No. Civ. No. 3581PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

This is an action to recover for the construction of a house under a builder’s contract. Plaintiff had judgment against one of the defendants and that defendant appeals.

[1] One question presented by the ease is whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. At the trial the defendants moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that it did not, and the motion was denied. The alleged defect in the complaint lies in the failure of respondent to plead in full the contract upon which he relies for a recovery of the amount due him for building the house, the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Merkeley v. FiskCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Torrey v. SheaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  3. Beedy v. San Mateo Hotel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  4. Learmonth v. VeederWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Watson v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Harm v. FrasherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Bonadiman-McCain, Inc. v. SnowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  3. Storm & Butts v. LipscombCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Landgraver v. DeShazerOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Landgraver v. DeShazerOregon Supreme Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API