Coronet Constr. Co., Inc. v. Palmer

Good Law
15 Cal. Rptr. 601·194 Cal. App. 2d 603·1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1857
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 1961Civ. 24966; Civ. 24967California5,308 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bishop, J.

These two cases were tried together ; the plaintiff in the second, is one of the defendants in the first; and the issues are intertwined. It therefore seems well to consider them together.

The first action is for damages caused by the breach of a contract of March 3, 1958, allegedly entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The second one was an endeavor by one who was a defendant in the first cause to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. A judgment was entered, in the first case, awarding the plantiffs $37,504.20, and one decreeing that the plaintiff take nothing was entered in the second case. Defendants D. M. Patritti, Consumers Transportation Corporation, and Cee Tee Construction Company appealed from the first judgment and Consumers Transportation Corporation, the plaintiff in the second action, appealed from its judgment. We have concluded, in the first case, that the evidence fails to support the findings against defendant Consumers Transportation Corporation. As to the other two appealing defendants we are modifying the judgment by striking the provision for interest. We are affirming the judgment in the second ease.

We will relate the facts of interest in the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.