Legal Opinion

Schroeder v. Pissis

California Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1900No. S.F. No. 1363PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, C.

Appeal from an order denying plaintiff a new trial. The action was brought by a subcontractor for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. Defendant Pissis was the owner of the building, and the defendants Gardner and Boyden were the contractors. In addition to the denials of the answer it is alleged therein as an affirmative defense “that subsequent to the completion of the building referred to in plaintiff’s complaint defendants Gardner and Boyden entered into a written agreement with plaintiff and with all the other persons who had performed labor upon the building referred to in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Riverside Water Co. v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Continental National Bank of Chicago v. McGeochWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Eaton v. LincolnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
  5. Lambert v. ShetlerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Holmes v. WarrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Peterson v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Shaw v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API