Legal Opinion

Pacific Factor Co. v. Adler

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1891No. 13354PublishedCited by 38 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action upon a contract to recover liquidated damages.

The portions of plaintiff’s complaint necessary to consider in the decision of this cause are: —

“That plaintiff is a corporation, incorporated in this state for the purpose of conducting and carrying on the business of buying, selling, and otherwise dealing in *114goods, wares, and merchandise, either in its own behalf or as agent for others on commission; that on the sixteenth day of May, 1888, in consideration of one dollar, defendant entered into an agreement, in writing, with plaintiff, whereby he agreed to give it (plaintiff)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Arnot v. . Pittston and Elmira Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
  2. Craft v. McConoughyIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Patent Brick Co. v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
  2. Speegle v. Board of Fire UnderwritersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Better Food Markets, Inc. v. American District Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1953
  4. State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
  5. Great Western Distillery Products, Inc. v. John A. Wathen Distillery Co.California Supreme Court · 1937

33 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