Legal Opinion
Cascaden v. Bell
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 5, 1919No. 3226PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
In the complaint it was alleged that certain difficulties arose between McCarty and the defendant, and that for the purpose of settling and adjusting said difficulties the defendant applied to the plaintiff for the' reduction of the option price in the plaintiff’s agreement with McCarty by the sum'of $5,000. The defendant moved that the plaintiff be required to make his complaint more definite and certain, and to set forth the nature of the difficulties between defendant and McCarty. The motion was denied, and that ruling is assigned as error. It is not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Davis v. PatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Emerson v. SlaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
- Warner v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- McPherson v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Walker v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Howarth v. First National Bank of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- Jackson Furniture Co. v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Lesser-Goldman Cotton Co. v. Merchants' & Planters' BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Oakland Water Front Co. v. Le RoyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- El Paso & S. W. R. Co. v. Phelps-Dodge Mercantile Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935