Loucks v. Morley
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial Fred H. Taft, Judge. Affirmed.
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
This is an action brought to recover damages for the breach of an implied warranty, under section 1775 of the Civil Code of the state of California, for alleged poisoning of plaintiff by reason of his having eaten rice, pudding as a part of his meal at the restaurant of defendant, and because of the sickness caused thereby, and his subsequent inability for a long period to practice his profession as an attorney at law.
From the record in this case it appears that on the fourteenth day of August, 1911, plaintiff went to the restaurant of said defendant, at about noon of said day, and became the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1911
- Parks v. C. C. Yost Pie Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1914
- Farrell v. Manhattan Market Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Wiedeman v. KellerIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Sheffer v. WilloughbyIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Mix v. Ingersoll Candy Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
- Goetten v. Owl Drug Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
- Rowe v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
- Brevoort Hotel Co. v. AmesIllinois Supreme Court · 1935
- Lynch v. Hotel Bond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.