Legal Opinion

Hallford v. Baird

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 30, 1938No. Civ. 1841PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAINES, J., pro tem.

The present action was commenced by respondents S. D. Hallford and J. F. Hallford, as partners, doing business under the firm name of Hallford’s, against Alexander B. Baird and appellant Doris Baird, who were formerly husband and wife, to recover $1450.40 alleged to be due as of April 24, 1933, on an account stated, with legal interest thereon from that date. The answer denies the account stated and as part of a separate defense alleges that the action is barred by subdivision 2 of section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Other matters alleged in the second defense are…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Auzerais v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Bennett v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Gardner v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Hendy v. MarchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Converse v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Flickinger v. Swedlow Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Crofts & Anderson v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Tringali v. VestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Holmes v. PottsMontana Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Holmes v. PottsMontana Supreme Court · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API