Legal Opinion
Arnold v. La Belle Oil Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 1, 1920No. Civ. No. 3181PublishedCited by 8 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fred H. Taft, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $4,362.43, claimed to he due and unpaid at the time of the commencement of this action, and the further sum of $300, claimed to have become due, owing, and unpaid “subsequent to the filing of the original complaint herein and the commencement of this action, and prior to the date of trial,” by virtue of certain of the- terms of a written instrument, which, in words and figures, is as follows:. “January 15, 1912.
“Mr. Ralph Arnold,
“700 H. W. Heilman Building,
“Los Angeles, California.
“Dear Sir:
“Until further notice, or until the La Belle Oil…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Curtin v. Salmon River Hydraulic Gold Mining & Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Brown v. MasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Justy v. ErroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Pacific Bank v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Gasolinas de Puerto Rico Corp. v. Keeler VázquezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2001
- Spalding v. BennettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Showers v. RoberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Realty Corp. of America, Inc. v. BurtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.