Legal Opinion

Bedell Engineering Co. v. Rouse

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 22, 1943No. Civ. 13983PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.

Appeal from judgment after demurrer to first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend, and motion to file a second amended complaint was denied.

Allegations in the complaint essential to this opinion are: (a) That the plaintiff was the owner of certain personal property; that a verbal agreement was made with the defendants as auctioneers to sell the same, but that to enable the defendants as such auctioneers to sell the property a written agreement of purchase and sale was entered into between them, which expressed a purchase price of $3,600. (b) That the…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Herdan v. HansonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. City of Oakland v. California Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Union FM v. Southern Cal. FMCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Crandall v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Neff v. EnglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Kauffman v. Bobo & WoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. McGowan v. McGowanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  4. Engle v. FarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API