Legal Opinion

Hengehold v. National Creamery & Produce Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 5, 1922No. Civ. No. 3631PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD, J., pro tem.

This action is for damages for breach of an alleged agreement by defendant to deliver certain eggs to plaintiff. Judgment .went for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Various points are raised. Only one need ¡be considered, for it is determinative: Was there a contract ¡of sale between the parties!

One Sherod, the representative of a brokerage firm, knowing that defendant had these eggs in storage, telephoned and received from defendant a price on the eggs and authority as broker to sell them. No terms as to time of delivery or of payment were specified. Later Sherod communicated…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Walsh v. HuntCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Harris v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Dean v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Lindow v. CohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  5. Pease v. FinkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. California Savings & Commercial Bank v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API