Legal Opinion

Martin v. Sharp & Fellows Contracting Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 11, 1917No. Civ. No. 1889PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

Action to recover a balance of $1,487.09 for work and labor done by plaintiff as a subcontractor of defendant.

Judgment went for plaintiff, from which, and an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

It appears that defendant, exacting a bond conditioned to protect it from loss in so doing, paid the sum in question, concededly earned by plaintiff in the performance of the work under the terms of a contract made by him with defendant, to one John Mulligan. The defense interposed by answer to plaintiff’s recovery thereof was, first, that the payment so made to Mulligan was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Coward v. ClantonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Dwinel v. StoneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
  3. Nofsinger v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Vanderhurst, Sanborn, & Co. v. De WittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Spier v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Constans v. RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Holmes v. LernerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Denning v. TaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Kersch v. TaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API