Legal Opinion

Rauer v. Fay

California Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 1900No. S.F. No. 1461PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

The cause was here once before and is reported in Rauer v. Fay, 110 Cal. 361. The action there was to enforce a mechanic’s lien for certain street work done under a contract entered into between the plaintiff’s assignor and defendant. The plaintiff had judgment, which was reversed. It was held that the contract was too uncertain and indefinite to entitle it to be admitted under the allegations of the complaint, but it was suggested that “possibly had the contract been set out in the complaint, with proper averments of the intention, and object of the parties, it might upon proof…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Rauer v. FayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Swift v. Occidental Mining & Petroleum Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Bell v. StaackeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Cameron v. Ah QuongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Chambers v. FarnhamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  5. Crescent Feather Co. v. United Upholsterers' Union, Local No. 28California Supreme Court · 1908

5 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