Little
Little v. Union Oil Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Cashin, J.
Action by appellant H. 0. Little against respondent Union Oil Company of California, a corporation.
Appellant by his amended complaint alleges in the form of two separate causes of action facts arising from the same transaction. As a first cause of action it is alleged that on August 24, 1923, a writing—in part a printed form used by respondent in the conduct of its business as a dealer in gasoline, and in part typewritten—was caused to be prepared in duplicate by one A. R. Atwood at the office of respondent in San Francisco, California, the writing being in words and figures as follows:
The portions typewritten, with the exception of the place therein provided for delivery, to wit, “Potrero plant, San Francisco,” in the third paragraph, and the place and date of making the writing were, the first and second paragraphs thereof, as shown by photostatic copy of the writing filed by stipulation as a supplement to the transcript on appeal. It is further alleged that the writing contained all the promises and conditions to be kept and performed by plaintiff and defendant, and that, in the words of the pleading, “plaintiff and defendant then and there intended said typewritten…