Legal Opinion

Vulicevich v. Skinner

California Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1888No. 11124PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Foote, C.

This action was brought to recover the sum of six hundred dollars, for money claimed by the plaintiff to have been received by the defendant for the former’s use.

The answer admits the reception of the money, but denies that it was received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use. It sets up a claim that the plaintiff bought defendant’s entire crop of fruit for the year 1882,

for the sum of three thousand dollars, and that the sum of six hundred dollars sued for in the action by the plaintiff was in reality paid to the defendant as part of the purchase-money for the crop of fruit; and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Davis v. McFarlaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Marshall v. FergusonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. California Employment Commission v. KovacevichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Summerlin v. Orange Shores, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1929
  3. Simmons v. WillifordSupreme Court of Florida · 1910
  4. Kester v. AmonMontana Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Smock v. SmockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889

16 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