Legal Opinion

Crummey v. Popp

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 26, 1926No. Docket No. 5674PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, P. J.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to require the respondent superintendent of streets to enter into a contract with petitioner for the performance of certain street improvements in the city of San Jose, and to require the respondent city manager to approve a bond offered by petitioner to secure the payment of labor and materials under such contract. The respondents defend upon the ground that the respondent Clark, as agent of property owners, is entitled to the contract instead of the petitioner.

It would serve no useful purpose to outline the pleadings or the facts of the case. It is…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ex parte UrrutiaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1932
  2. Griffith Co. v. KellyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Ex parte Urrutia MartorellSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API