Legal Opinion
Baird v. Peall
California Supreme Court
Decided December 12, 1891No. 13773PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order denying a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for the sum of $150, alleged to be the balance due on a contract for painting. The following is a copy of the written contract as admitted by the pleadings:—
“San Jose, Dec. 19, 1888.
“ Contract and agreement made this day between W. J. Peall and J. H. Baird, whereby J. H. Baird, a painter and contractor, agrees to paint a certain frame hotel, known as the Continental Hotel, of forty (40) rooms, located in the town of Bethlehem, Santa Clara County, California; the same to be two-coat work of lead and oil or rubber preparation, to suit the owner,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Schwartz v. KnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Sparks v. Butte County Gravel Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- La Grill v. MallardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- De Molera v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Drathman v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Kumle v. Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United WorkmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Abbott v. JackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.