Linder Hardware Co. v. Pacific Sugar Corp.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. W. B. Wallace, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Bradley & Bradley, and Gray, Barker, Bowen, Allen, Van Dyke & Jutten, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant on three separate counts: For goods sold and delivered, $3,407.47; on an account for labor, alleged to have been assigned to plaintiff, $2,000; on- a promissory note alleged to have been executed by defendant to Studebaker Brothers Company and assigned to plaintiff, $2,370.15. A fourth, based on a promissory note, was dismissed as not then due.'
The defendant did not deny the purchase of the goods, the performance of the labor or the execution of the note, but, by amended answer, set up certain separate defenses: 1. That a new contract of novation was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bedell v. HerringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Pastene v. PardiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ehrenreich v. SheltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Moore v. CraigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Potts v. MehrmannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Umbsen v. Crocker First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Colley v. Chowchilla National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.