Bergtholdt

Bergtholdt v. Porter Bros.

Good Law
114 Cal. 681·1896 Cal. LEXIS 959·46 P. 738
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 6, 1896Sac. No. 184California724 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

Action to recover for services rendered by plaintiff to the defendant, viz., a balance of six hun *684 dred and eighty-nine dollars and twelve cents, and, as assignee of F. H. Howell, to recover five hundred and thirty-six dollars and ninety-three cents for services rendered to defendant by said Howell. Plaintiff had judgment for twelve hundred and twenty-six dollars and sixty-five cents, and costs of suit. Defendant appeals from the judgment, and supports its appeal by a bill of exceptions.

Porter Brothers Company, the defendant, was and is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Illinois. Since 1892, and prior to that date, it has been engaged in shipping fruit from sundry points in California to Chicago, New York, Omaha, Minneapolis, and perhaps some other points east, where it sells and disposes thereof. Its head office in California seems to have been at Sacramento, and Nate R. Salsbury was its vice-president and general manager for California; Newcastle, Penryn, and Loomis are stations upon the Central Pacific Railroad, situate in the fruit region of Placer county, California.

A. Moger located at Newcastle in 1890, or early in…

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.