Forderer Cornice Works v. Chatham
FORDERER CORNICE WORKS (a Corporation) v. WILLIAM CHATHAM
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- George A. Sturtevant (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Sturtevant
STURTEVANT, J.
This is an appeal by the sureties on a contractor’s bond from a judgment in favor of a material-man. The ease is parallel in all of its' facts with the case entitled W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Chatham et al., 53 Cal. App. 800 [200 Pac. 293]. A petition to have that case heard and determined by the supreme court was by that court denied September 15, 1921.
Since this case was filed, the Puller ease was heard and determined on appeal. Counsel for appellants have courteously called to our attention the above facts.' On the authority of the Puller case the judgment is affirmed.
Nourse, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Fuller Co. v. Chatham Civ. No. 3812. · 1921-07-20
- W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Chatham Civ. No. 3812 · 1921-07-20