Reposa v. Pearce

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 9934 · 1936-01-30 · Published · 11 Cal. App. 2d 520 · 54 P.2d 476

Area: civil
Panel: John T. Nourse (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

11 Cal.App.2d 520 (1936) JOHN REPOSA, Respondent, v. CARLOS PEARCE, Appellant.

Civ. No. 9934. California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division Two.

January 30, 1936. J. E. McCurdy and F. E. Hoffman for Appellant.

Larrouy & Macdonald for Respondent.

Nourse, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order amending a bill of exceptions in Reposa v. Pearce, No. 9829 (ante, p. 517 [54 PaCal.2d 475]). The amendment was made to include the original statements of indebtedness included in the plaintiff's claim for special damages. [1] Because of the judgment in the main case holding that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages, the question raised here has become moot.

For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Reposa v. Pearce Civ. No. 9934 · 1936-01-30