Legal Opinion
Tennant v. Wilde
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 23, 1929No. Docket No. 5203PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BURNELL, J., pro tem.
Plaintiffs, by their amended complaint and an “amended amendment” thereto sought to recover a balance alleged to be due on a promissory note executed by defendants in the original sum of $3,000; and in a second cause of action set up the written instrument which is the bone of contention in this appeal and which is as follows:
“I hereby agree to work as a carpenter in the carpenter work to be done by W. C. Wilde on the ‘Court Hotel’ building now at No. 1451 State Street, San Diego, California, until all of the same has been.fully completed as an 18-apartment building…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Silvers v. GrossmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Woodard v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- National Furnace Co. v. Keystone Manufacturing Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Loudenback Fertilizer Co. v. Tennessee Phosphate Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1903
- Preble v. AbrahamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
- Tahoe National Bank v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Pacific Portland Cement Co. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Long Beach Drug Co. v. United Drug Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Lawrence Block Co. v. PalstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.