Joost

Joost v. Bennett

Good Law
123 Cal. 424·1899 Cal. LEXIS 1089·56 P. 43
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 1899S. F. No. 880California1,332 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought and prosecuted by leave of the court in which the receiver was appointed, against the defendant herein as such receiver, for causes alleged in the complaint.

The complaint contains two causes of action. In the first, after showing the due appointment of the defendant, it is averred: “That plaintiff herein was employed by, and rendered services to, said Sanford Bennett, as such said receiver, at his request, in the necessary and proper services and management of the property, business, and operations of said San Francisco and San Mateo Railway Company, and in the defense of its interests, and in the prosecution of its rights and claims in numerous proceedings and actions at law, and in the preparations for the trials of said actions, and in becoming informed upon and regarding the same, and in settling and adjusting the claim and demands made in and by said actions against said San Francisco and San Mateo Railway Company and its property, and by the parties and persons who were and are prosecuting their said claims against said railway company and its property,…

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.