Quint v. Dimond
California Supreme Court
The affidavits of defendants Dennis S. Dimond and F. A. Jenkins contradicted the averment of the verified complaint, that Jenkins was connected in any manner with the operation of the machine at any time. Further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, C.
Appeal from order denying defendants’ motion for change of place of trial. The suit was brought in the superior court of the county of Glenn, to recover damages for destruction of plaintiff’s grain by fire, which, it is alleged, was caused by the defendants’ negligence in operating a combined harvester and traction-engine on an adjoining tract. '
The defendants Dimond were the owners of the machine, but it is alleged, in effect, that they and the defendant Jenkins were, at the time of the accident, “in the exclusive control and management of [it], in the use and operation thereof,”…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Smith v. BelshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McKenzie v. BarlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Quigley v. GillettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Sayward v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hearne v. De YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- McClung v. WattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Eddy v. HoughtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Donohoe v. WoosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Hellman v. LoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Freeman v. DowlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.