Ruland v. All Persons, Etc.
Charles Ruland v. All Persons, Etc., Defendants Mary C. Bagley
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
- Trial judge
- J. M. Seawell
- Outcome
- affirmed — the judgment is affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Albert G. Burnett (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
This case also involves the same questions as those decided in Bagley v. Bloom et al., ante, p. 255, [125 P. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion therein filed, the judgment is affirmed.
Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 14, 1912.
Cites, in this corpus
- Bagley v. City & County of San Francisco Civ. No. 1041. · 1912-06-15