Fordyce v. Spiegl
Maud M. Fordyce v. L. M. Spiegl
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial
- Trial judge
- A. E. Graupner
- Outcome
- other — The facts are identical with those stated in the case of Kerner v. Spiegl, ante, p. 162, [ 166 P.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Richards (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
The facts of this case are in all respects identical with the facts in the case of Kerner v. Spiegl, ante, p. 162, [166 P. 1013], pending in this court, and this day decided, and the opinion in that case is equally applicable to the present one.
The order denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed.
Beasly, J., pro tem., 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 16, 1917. *Page 803
Cites, in this corpus
- Kerner v. Spiegl Civ. No. 2055. · 1917-06-20