Legal Opinion
Tanaka v. Highway Farming Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 19, 1926No. Docket No. 3076PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
The appellant Highway Farming Company and the plaintiffs entered into a contract, by the terms of which the latter were to perform all the work and labor in the production of a crop of grapes on 120 acres of land belonging to the former and to receive therefor “45 per cent of the gross proceeds of all the grapes,” the same to be sold “jointly by the first party and the second parties in their names.” The complaint alleges that thereafter the defendants E. S. Ardzrooni and L. S. Ardzrooni, as copartners, “did assume each and all of the obligations of said contract on the part of said Highway…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Victor Oil Co. v. DrumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Robson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Talcott Land Co. v. HershiserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Hentig v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Hubermann v. National Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Truck Insurance Exchange v. TorresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- People v. Buellton Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
- Atherley v. MacDonald, Young & Nelson, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- Nakagawa v. Highway Farming Co.California Court of Appeal · 1926
- Nakagawa v. Highway Farming CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926