Legal Opinion

United States Fidelity Etc. Co. v. More

California Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 1909No. L.A. No. 2166PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

By this action plaintiff seeks to recover of the defendant the sum of $1964.41, with interest, damages, and counsel fees, alleged to be due on an indemnity contract given by defendant to plaintiff in consideration of the execution by plaintiff of a stay-bond on appeal in the replevin suit of Churchill v. More, 4 Cal. App. 219, [88 Pac. 290]. For the facts of the litigation, reference may be had to Churchill v. More, supra; Churchill v. More, 7 Cal. App. 767, [96 Pac. 108]; and More v. Churchill, ante, p. 368, [101 Pac. 9]. A general demurrer was sustained to plaintiff’s complaint, and from…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Churchill v. MoreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  2. Churchill v. MoreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  3. More v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. People v. SilvaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  3. Schlitz v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  4. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. TerrallOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Bailey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916

1 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