gno.law

Flores v. Toffelmier

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 6518. · 1929-03-02 · Published · 275 P. 825 · 97 Cal. App. 795 · 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 893

MAY FLORES, Appellant, v. J. C. TOFFELMIER Et Al., Respondents

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Alameda County
Trial judge
E. C. Robinson
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Charles R. Barnard (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 — Barnard

BARNARD, J., pro tem.

All the material facts in this case are practically the same as those in Brewis v. Toffelmier et al., ante, p. 329 [275 Pac. 819], and are exactly the same as those in Joseph Flores v. Toffelmier et al., ante, p. 339 [275 Pac. 824]. The plaintiff herein is the wife of the plaintiff in the latter case, and her stock in the San Leandro Canning Company, Inc., was purchased for her by her husband under circumstances identical with those surrounding the purchase of his own stock in said company.

These cases were all tried together, .and this appeal is from a similar judgment in favor of the defendants.

For the reasons given in the case of Brewis v. Toffelmier et al., supra, and in the case of Joseph Flores v. Toffelmier et al., supra, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

*796 A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on April 1, 1929, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 29, 1929.

All the Justices present concurred.

Cites, in this corpus