gno.law

Bagley v. Lilienthal

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 1042. · 1912-06-15 · Published · 125 P. 938 · 19 Cal. App. 273 · 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 46

Mary C. Bagley v. Jesse W. Lilienthal

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), &#8212

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 involves the same questions as Bagley v. Bloom etal. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 P. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed therein, 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. *Page 274

Cites, in this corpus