Legal Opinion

California Canning Peach Growers v. Downey

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 26, 1925No. Docket No. 2913PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

Action by plaintiff to recover liquidated damages from the defendant Sheridan Downey on account of alleged violation of the terms and conditions of a certain fruit-marketing agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant Downey on or about the seventeenth day of April, 1923. The defendant had judgment and the plaintiff appeals. Leaving all the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint uncontroverted, the defendant sets up in his amended answer: “that the plaintiff notified the defendant that his peaches for the year 1923 had been sold to Smith-Prank Packing Company, a…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
  3. Plumb v. . Cattaraugus Co. Mutual Insurance Company.New York Court of Appeals · 1858
  4. Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Brown v. . BowenNew York Court of Appeals · 1864

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. American Cooperative Serum Ass'n v. Anchor Serum Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1946
  2. California Bean Growers' Ass'n v. Rindge Land & Navigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
  3. California Canning Peach Growers v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Olson v. Biola Cooperative Raisin Growers Assn.California Supreme Court · 1949
  5. California Canning Peach Growers v. HarkeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

17 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