Ewer v. Jackson

283 P. 110, 102 Cal. App. 793, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 130
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 27, 1929
DocketDocket No. 4.
StatusPublished

This text of 283 P. 110 (Ewer v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ewer v. Jackson, 283 P. 110, 102 Cal. App. 793, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 130 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

SLOANE, P. J.

The facts and issues involved in this appeal are practically identical with those in the case of Doud v. Jackson, ante, p. 213 [283 Pac. 107],

The cause of action arises on a complaint alleging a contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant on the fifth day of May, 1926, for the purchase of fur-bearing rabbits, for a cash consideration of $400; said contract also providing that plaintiff, under the supervision of defendant, should provide for the hutches and care and feed • of the rabbits, for .which plaintiff alleges that he expended the sum of $490, making a total claim of $890.

A writ of attachment was issued in this action, based on an affidavit identical in its terms, except as to dates and amount,- with that in the Doud case. The same action was taken in the matter of dissolving said attachment and on the same grounds.

There being no difference in the nature of the liability of the parties, or of the legal questions involved, between the two cases, the order of the court appealed from, *794 dissolving attachment, is affirmed, on the grounds set out in the decision of the preceding ease.

Marks, J., and Barnard, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doud v. Jackson
283 P. 107 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 P. 110, 102 Cal. App. 793, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ewer-v-jackson-calctapp-1929.