Cooney

Cooney v. Glide

Good Law
97 Cal. App. 77·275 P. 257
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 1929Docket No. 3601.California3,085 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Plummer, J.

The plaintiff had judgment against the defendant in the trial court for the sum of $583.25, as the balance due on account of materials furnished and work and labor performed by the plaintiff at the special instance and request of the defendant. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

The respondent is a painting contractor residing in the city of Sacramento. The appellant is a farmer residing in Yolo County, on the road between Winters and Davis. The record shows that on or about the eleventh day of August, 1926, the appellant wrote to the respondent a letter in which he stated he had some painting which he desired done. In response to the letter the respondent went to the appellant’s place of residence where the appellant pointed out a number of buildings which he desired painted. The buildings consisted of a dwelling-house, a tank-house, several bunkhouses, blacksmith-shop, hay barns, etc. According to the testimony the appellant stated that he wanted the buildings given two coats of white paint and desired the roofs to be painted green. There were fifteen units or fifteen different buildings pointed out by the appellant to the respondent, which the appellant stated he…

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.