v0755-525

No. 2121

IN THE

United States Circuit Court of Appeals

For the Ninth Circuit

1. 1. WILL JOEGENSEN,

Plaintiff in Error,

vs.

COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE (a municipal

corporation of the State of California),

Defendant in Error.

ORAL ARGUMENT OF WALTER SHELTON ON BEHALF

OF DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Preface.

In view of the fact that the reply brief of plain-

tiff in error was filed after oral argument and is to

a great extent a reply to that argument, and since

there was, therefore, no opportunity to discuss its

various features, permission has been gi'anted de-

fendant in error to edit and file the material part

of the oral argument in its behalf.

Construction of the Contract.

Plaintiff in error has never seen fit to confine

himself to any particular theory upon which to base

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs0755

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs0755

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs0755#page/n524/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

contract, work, county, plans, section, construction, bridge, statute, implied, provisions, structure, specifications, provision, performance, counties

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

implied contract, extra work, section 4073, complete structure, bed rock, express contract, specifica tions, oral argument, municipal corporation, materials furnished, civil code, actual distance, unplied contract, specifi cations, section 1650,

Document Status: UGLY