Legal Opinion

Briggs v. Marcus-Lesoine, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 1934No. Civ. 9404PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JONES, J., pro tem.

This is an action for money had and received. Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the trial court and defendant has appealed.

The plaintiff was employed as sales manager for a Mrs. Charest, a manufacturer of a ladies’ hair tint or rinse, which was being sold under the trade name of “Lovalon”. As compensation the plaintiff was paid by Mrs. Charest twenty-five per cent of the amount which she received each month for “Lovalon” sold during the preceding month. Marcus-Lesoine, Inc., the' defendant, was the sole distributor of the product under a contract with the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Purdy v. Buffums, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1928
  2. Whittle v. WhittleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bastanchury v. Times-Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. Leonard v. HustonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Courtright v. DimmickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Nichols v. Boswell-AlliAnce Construction Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Melvin Memphry Carter v. Beverly Hills Federal Savings Bank and Southland CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API