Wright

Wright v. Serimian

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 374·66 Cal. App. 75·225 P. 28
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 1924Civ. No. 4616.California481 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiff sued and recovered judgment for $1,421.20 upon a complaint alleging that at the special instance and request of the defendants he had performed labor and furnished materials in the reconstruction and repair of a building owned by the defendants, and that the reasonable value of such labor and materials was the sum for which he recovered judgment. The complaint contains

l a great many more words than are necessary, hut the essential allegations of employment, performance, reasonable value, and failure to pay are present. The answer denies all these allegations. Upon the trial the defendants admitted the falsity of their denials and the trial court found them to be untrue.

The only excuse for the appeal from the judgment •is that some of the work was performed by the respondent under an express agreement made with him and one Stone, 'who was the original contractor or superintendent of construction in the employ of the appellants. It is pointed out that during the course of the work Stone, owing to some dispute with the appellants, stopped the work and instructed respondent to do the same; that thereafter, upon the urgent request of the appellants and their express…

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.