Joost v. Bennett
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. James M. Troutt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought and prosecuted by leave of the court in which the receiver was appointed, against the defendant herein as such receiver, for causes alleged in the complaint.
The complaint contains two causes of action. In the first, after showing the due appointment of the defendant, it is averred: “That plaintiff herein was employed by, and rendered services to, said Sanford Bennett, as such said receiver, at his request, in the necessary and proper services and management of the property,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stuart v. BoulwareSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Gurnee v. MaloneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Firebaugh v. BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- McChesney v. KnoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by5 opinions
- City Bank of Wheeling v. BryanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1915
- First National Bank v. Oregon Paper Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1903
- United States v. Security-First Nat. BankDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1939
- Vansenden v. KerrWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1921
- Wilder v. ReedOregon Supreme Court · 1905