Legal Opinion
Lehner v. McLennan
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 7, 1921No. Civ. No. 3396PublishedCited by 4 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
Plaintiff sued defendants upon a contract for the fumigation of their orchard. Defendants cross-complained for damages to their trees and fruit because of the alleged negligence of plaintiff in his performance of the agreement to fumigate. Judgment went for plaintiff upon both controversies and defendants appeal.
Appellants’ first contention is that the complaint is insufficient,'as tested by the demurrer which was interposed to it and which was overruled. The text of the complaint is: “That within the two years last past, and on or about October 7th, 1918, the defendant, Sue A. McLennan,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pike v. ZadigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Bourguignon v. Peninsular Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Camp v. BoydCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Duran v. Yellow Aster Mining & Milling Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
3Cited by4 opinions
- Union Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Smith v. BentsonAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1932
- Paloian v. LaSalle Bank National Ass'n (In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011
- Oliver v. SperryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929