Stansbury

Stansbury v. Frazer

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 769·46 Cal. App. 485·189 P. 495
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1920Civ. No. 2106.California1,614 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

The controversy is over the satisfaction of a claim of plaintiff for the sum of $2,332. On December 29, 1915, one James L. Frazer entered into a contract with the county of Los Angeles for the construction of a highway known and designated as “Road Improvement District No. 39.” For the work to be done by said Frazer the said county of Los Angeles promised to issue its bonds in the amount of $19,495 as provided in the certain act known as the Road District Improvement Act of 1907. The work was completed by Frazer, and was accepted by the board of supervisors of said county; the bonds were issued and the proper fund created and all the bonds were delivered in payment for said work except bonds for the amount of four thousand dollars, which at the beginning of this action were in the possession of the county treasurer. After said contract was executed between said Frazer and said county an agreement was entered into between Frazer and the plaintiff herein, whereby plaintiff agreed to furnish teams, tools, and other appliances required in the construction of said highway. Plaintiff complied with his agreement and the evidence shows without any controversy—in fact, it is. virtually…

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.