Union Collection Co. v. National Fertilizer Co.

California Supreme Court

Union Collection Co. v. National Fertilizer Co.

82 P. 1129, 7 Cal. Unrep. 244

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 24, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 P. 1129 (Union Collection Co. v. National Fertilizer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Union Collection Co. v. National Fertilizer Co., 82 P. 1129, 7 Cal. Unrep. 244 (Cal. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

COOPER, J.

This appeal is from the judgment on the judgment-roll alone. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It alleges that the defendant became indebted to plaintiff’s assignor for services rendered at defendant’s special instance and request between the first day of June, 1901, and the thirty-first day of July, 1902; that such services were of the reasonable value of $1,050, and the same has not been paid, except the sum of $46. The assignment to plaintiff is alleged to have been made on the twenty-ninth day of July, 1902, two days before the services were fully performed. The complaint states that by reason of the assignment the plaintiff “ever since has been, and now is, the owner and holder thereof.” It does not concern the defendant as to when the indebtedness was assigned to plaintiff. The findings follow the complaint and are sufficient.

There is no merit in this appeal, and the judgment is affirmed, with $100 damages to respondent.

We concur: Harrison, P. J.; Hall, J.

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

COOPER, J.

This appeal is from the judgment on the judgment-roll alone. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It alleges that the defendant became indebted to plaintiff’s assignor for services rendered at defendant’s special instance and request between the first day of June, 1901, and the thirty-first day of July, 1902; that such services were of the reasonable value of $1,050, and the same has not been paid, except the sum of $46. The assignment to plaintiff is alleged to have been made on the twenty-ninth day of July, 1902, two days before the services were fully performed. The complaint states that by reason of the assignment the plaintiff “ever since has been, and now is, the owner and holder thereof.” It does not concern the defendant as to when the indebtedness was assigned to plaintiff. The findings follow the complaint and are sufficient.

There is no merit in this appeal, and the judgment is affirmed, with $100 damages to respondent.

We concur: Harrison, P. J.; Hall, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 P. 1129, 7 Cal. Unrep. 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-collection-co-v-national-fertilizer-co-cal-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack