Cadenasso

Cadenasso v. Antonelle

Good Law
127 Cal. 382·1899 Cal. LEXIS 658·59 P. 765
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 29, 1899S.F. No. 1997.California1,643 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cooper, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and from an order denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial. The complaint states in substance that on the first day of November, 1895, the defendant Antonelle entered into a contract with one Perry and others, under the terms of which Antonelle was to build a tunnel in the Butte Basin gravel mine, situated in Amador county, within the time and for the consideration named in a written contract made by said parties.

Antonelle gave to said Perry and others an undertaking, with defendants Turner and 'Vermeil as sureties, conditioned that said Antonelle would faithfully perform the said contract and construct the said tunnel as he had agreed to do. The said undertaking contained the following conditions:

That after the said contract was made and said undertaking given, the said Antonelle in due time entered upon the construction of the said tunnel in accordance with the said contract. “That the plaintiffs herein, relying upon said bond, furnished to the said J. S. Antonelle, at his special instance and request, between the dates of 10th and 31st of.December, 1895, and with the full knowledge and consent of the said…

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.