Legal Opinion

Llewellyn Iron Works v. Reed

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 20, 1932No. Docket No. 4547PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

Appellant states in its opening brief that although in form this appeal is from the whole of the judgment, it is in fact directed only to so much of said judgment as denies appellant any recovery against respondents William G. Reed, Breakers Hotel Company and Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company. The action was commenced originally by appellant to foreclose mechanics’ liens and also to recover from the surety on the bond executed by said Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company. This case was consolidated, for trial, with numerous other cases. Those cases have been…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Roberts v. Security T. S. BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Hammond Lumber Co. v. WillisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Kress v. Tooker-Jordan Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Williams v. TingeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rogers v. WhitsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  2. E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Union Indemnity Co. v. LangCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API