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

  1. Schwartz v. KnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Sparks v. Butte County Gravel Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
  3. La Grill v. MallardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. De Molera v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Drathman v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Kumle v. Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United WorkmenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Abbott v. JackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

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

Powered by the Exa API