Legal Opinion

Christopher v. Condogeorge

California Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 1900No. L.A. No. 711PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Appeal from an order modifying an injunction. Plaintiffs, doing business as copartners in Los Angeles, being the owners of certain personal property consisting of various articles, including a soda fountain, used in outfitting a shop in which to sell confections, ice cream, soda, etc., leased the property to defendant by a written instrument dated August 31, 1898. On November 23, 1898, plaintiffs filed their verified complaint, alleging the execution of the lease, possession of defendant under the same, and that “defendant agreed to conduct with the use of said property an ice…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Marks v. Weinstock, Lubin & Co.California Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lantz v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Chico Feminist Women's Health Center v. ScullyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  3. Benepe-Owenhouse Co. v. ScheideggerMontana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. San Francisco Iron & Metal Co. v. AbrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. MALATKA v. HelmCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API