Sam Bialac et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Harsh Building Co., Etc. et al., Appellees, 436 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1971)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Walter E. Craig, Judge.
Richard A. Hillhouse, of Lewis & Roca, Flynn, Treon, Kimerer & Thinnes, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS, MURRAH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The partial summary judgment is reversed. California law seems applicable. We believe that we have a situation where extrinsic evidence was admissible to determine what the intention of the parties was in their written papers. (Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage and Rigging Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641; Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 222, 65 Cal. Rptr. 545, 436 P.2d. 561; Royal Industries v. St. Regis Paper Co. (9th Cir. 1969), 420 F.2d 449.) As of now, we do not see a jury question on the remand on the points before us.
Reversed and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
