Marshall v. Livermore Spring Water Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Superior Court of the County of Alameda.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
These appeals were submitted together, and will be so considered. Both are taken from a decree of foreclosure and sale, and from an order refusing a new trial of the action—one being brought by the defendant and the other by the intervener. According to the averments of the complaint in intervention, the liens claimed by the intervener grew out of contract. The agreements out of which they are alleged to have arisen are not in the pleading expressly stated to have been in writing, nor was that necessary. But if by statute they were required to be in writing, the intervener was bound to prove…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vassault v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Crosby v. DowdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Porter v. MullerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mitchell v.Amador Canal & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Fidler v. Farmers & Traders BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920
- Remainders, Inc. v. BartlettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963