Legal Opinion
Kirman v. Borzage
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 4, 1949No. Civ. 16544PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.
From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a trial before the court without a jury in an action predicated upon two causes of action, (1) for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, and (2) to recover $3,679.61 alleged to be due on a written contract, defendant appeals.
Facts
The present action was instituted April 27, 1942, resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, which was reversed upon appeal. (Kirman v. Borzage, 65 Cal.App.2d 156 [150 P.2d 3].) Thereafter, plaintiffs filed their amended, second amended, and third amended complaints. To the latter pleading a demurrer was sustained…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kennedy v. IsenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- People v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Cowell v. SnyderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- McCowen v. PewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Brice v. StarrWashington Supreme Court · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- California Union Insurance Co. v. Trinity River Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1980
- Hagan v. FairfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Stock v. MeekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952