California Viking Sprinkler Co. v. Cheney
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.
Appellants urge that the evidence in this case fails to support the findings of the trial court enforcing a mechanic’s lien for the unpaid balance due upon a written contract for the installation of a pipe system of automatic sprinklers in appellants’ apartment house. Appellants claim that the court should have sustained their affirmative defense that respondent fraudulently misrepresented that 483 automatic sprinkler heads would be installed although it actually only installed 411. Performing our limited function of examining the record to determine if substantial evidence supports the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Overton v. Vita-Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Duncan v. RamishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- People v. Woon Tuck WoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- People v. DanielsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Babcock v. OmanskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Vitek, Inc. v. Alvarado Ice Palace, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1973
- American City Bank v. ZetlenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. WhitsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Abbett Electric Corp. v. California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.