Legal Opinion

Albert Steinfeld & Co. v. Broxholme

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 14, 1922No. Civ. No. 3697PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.

Plaintiff, as the assignee of Harold Steinfeld and Andrew Pizzini, brought this action to recover damages claimed to have been occasioned by the breach of an alleged contract to install tiles in a flower-store .at Tucson, Arizona. The store was owned by plaintiff’s assignors, and at the times in question was being remodeled by them. The defense was that though defendants made an offer to install the tiles the offer was revoked prior to its acceptance ; wherefore defendants asserted that no agreement was consummated, and that therefore there was no breach of contract on their part. The trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Salfield v. Sutter County Land Improvement & Reclamation Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Schanen-Blair Co. v. Sisters of Charity of the House of ProvidenceWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Cassin v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  5. Baldwin v. SchiappacasseMichigan Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Forgeron Inc. v. HansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Malinski v. Wegman's Nursery & Landscaping, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. Diffenbach v. H. H. Mahler Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  4. Heple v. KlugeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Streichert v. HigginsOregon Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API