Legal Opinion
Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. Zachary
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 24, 1943No. Civ. 12516PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLING, J. pro tem.
This appeal is prosecuted from an order denying defendants’ motion for change of place of trial from the city and county of San Francisco to the county of Los Angeles.
The complaint seeks recovery of the purchase price of certain wine sold and delivered by plaintiff’s predecessor, Earl Fruit Co., under two separate contracts in writing. One of said contracts was admittedly entered in in San Francisco. The other contract was negotiated by one Tucker, a salesman for plaintiff’s predecessor, in Los Angeles County and an order was signed there by Tucker designated as “salesman”…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Wrin v. OhlandtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Willingham v. PecoraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Scott v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Wood v. SilversCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Parker Co., Inc. v. Exeter Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Peterson v. ShermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Harden v. Skinner & HammondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- De Campos v. State Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Schreiber v. HookerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Edwards v. PiersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.