Legal Opinion

Beltaire v. George Rosenberg & Son

California Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 1900No. S.F. No. 1434PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment. From the affidavits and exhibits used on the motion to dissolve the attachment, embodied in the hill of exceptions, it appears that the defendants reside in and do business in the city and county of San Francisco; that the plaintiffs reside in the city of Hew York, and are engaged in the business of manufacturing hats in said city; that on or about the first day of August, 1897, Charles Rosenberg, one of the defendants, while in said city of Hew York, entered into a contract with the plaintiffs for the manufacture of a large number of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Coffee v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Gow v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Rudolph v. SaundersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. California Bean Growers Ass'n v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  2. Davidson Grocery Co. v. JohnstonIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Clyne v. Easton, Eldrige & Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Outwaters v. BrownleeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  5. Ough v. Ansonia Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929

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