Legal Opinion

Smith v. Riedele

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 23, 1923No. Civ. No. 3882PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

In this action plaintiff sued to recover for personal services rendered to defendant, relying for a recovery upon an implied promise of defendant to pay. The services were varied in their nature and many of them were performed about the house and grounds of respondent. Upon a motion for a nonsuit the trial court determined that plaintiff’s evidence was barren of a showing of an implied promise. The motion for a nonsuit was granted and judgment went for defendant accordingly. Plaintiff appeals.

Appellant was the only witness at the trial. His testimony showed the rendition by him of various…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crane v. DerrickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Ruble v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hartley v. BohrerIdaho Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Newbert v. McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Payne v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Cook v. BrysonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Ferguson v. DamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

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