Case Name: Sam BIALAC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HARSH BUILDING CO., etc. et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-02-11
Citations: 436 F.2d 1381
Docket Number: No. 26133
Parties: Sam BIALAC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HARSH BUILDING CO., etc. et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 436
Pages: 1381–1381

Head Matter:
Sam BIALAC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HARSH BUILDING CO., etc. et al., Appellees.
No. 26133.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 11, 1971.
Richard A. Hillhouse, of Lewis & Roca, Flynn, Treon, Kimerer & Thinnes, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS, MURRAH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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.