Legal Opinion

Allen v. Hance

California Supreme Court

Decided October 13, 1911No. L.A. No. 2687PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff against defendant, the treasurer of the city of Los Angeles, to restrain the sale of plaintiff’s property in the foreclosure of a lien for certain street-assessment work.

The city of Los Angeles had entered into a contract with one Whittier for the performance of certain street "work on Pasadena Avenue. The specifications for 'the work contained the following clause: “all loss or damage arising from the nature of the work to be done under this agreement . . . shall be sustained by the contractor.” The firm of Tryon-Brain Company succeeded to Whittier’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blochman v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Heft v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Meuser v. RisdonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Cummings v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Union Paving & Contracting Co. v. McGovernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Austin v. Hallmark Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Bastanchury v. Times-Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  3. Cutting v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Dool v. First Nat'l Bank of CalexicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  5. People v. MainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

7 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