1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.2d
  4. 61 Cal.2d
  5. 61 Cal.2d 526 (1964)
 

NOFZIGER v. HOLMAN

Docket No. S.F. 21303.

61 Cal.2d 526 (1964)

393 P.2d 696

39 Cal. Rptr. 384

ROBERT A. NOFZIGER et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. FRED J. HOLMAN et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.

Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

July 9, 1964.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Wexler & Wexler and Louis E. Wexler for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants.

Dinkelspiel & Dinkelspiel and Alan A. Dougherty for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.

GIBSON, C.J.

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence to explain the meaning of a written contract. We have concluded that the evidence should have been admitted and that the judgment must be reversed.

Plaintiffs Nofziger and Rossi employed defendant Holman as foreman to supervise the construction of houses in a certain subdivision. The contract of employment provides in part that Holman...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases