McCall

McCall v. Schnackenberg

Good Law
167 Cal. App. 2d 355·1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 2339·334 P.2d 264
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 1959Civ. No. 5780California1,067 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mussell, J.

This action was commenced in the Municipal Court of Riverside Judicial District. McCall and Noblitt, plaintiffs therein, sought judgment against defendant Schnackenberg and his wife for fertilizer sold and delivered to them. Defendants filed a general denial and cross-complaint, and alleged that in March, 1953, plaintiffs orally agreed to furnish all the fertilizer that defendants would need to fertilize approximately 25 acres of potatoes and to assist in the supervision and in the planting and raising of said crop; that they failed to deliver the fertilizer as agreed and that by reason of the delay of plaintiffs in delivering said fertilizer defendants’ potato crop was damaged in the sum of $5,000. The cause was transferred to the superior court and a jury trial was had therein, resulting in a verdict in favor of the defendants and cross-eomplainants and against McCall and Noblitt for the sum of $3,000. On August 1, 1957, the trial court granted a new trial on motion of plaintiffs “on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and for excessive damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.” Defendant and…

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.