O'Connor v. Hooper
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
It is alleged in the complaint, substantially, that on the first day of September, 1891, the *529defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of nine hundred and thirty-seven dollars and fifty-five cents for work and labor theretofore done and performed by plaintiff at defendant’s instance and request, in grading on Laguna street, between Clay and Washington streets, in the city and county of San Francisco; and that defendant has refused to pay said sum or any part thereof. By the answer of the defendant each allegation of the complaint is specifically denied.
The cause having…
2Cited by10 opinions
- In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Long v. John Breuner Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
- Archibald Estate v. MattesonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Brown v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Vincent B. Welch v. Robert W. SherwinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.