Danielian v. Wells
HAGOP DANIELIAN, Respondent, v. CHARLES WELLS Et Al., Appellants
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Tulare County
- Trial judge
- J. A. Allen
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John W. Shenk (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 — Shenk
SHENK, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendants the value of the use and possession of a twenty-seven acre tract of producing vineyard land located in the county of Tulare. Judgment went for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $2,262. Notice of appeal was filed on behalf of all of the defendants, but said appeal as to Charles Wells and Harry Faith has been abandoned. The appeal of C. L. Caine is the only one pre *802 sented for determination. The plaintiff’s land adjoins the twenty-seven acre tract of land owned and described by the plaintiffs in the case of Shamlian v. Wells, ante, p. 716 [242 Pac. 483], On this appeal it is stipulated that the facts in this case are distinguishable from the facts in that ease only as to the amount of the judgment, and no point is made that the amount of the judgment was not properly ascertained. On the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.
Richards, J., Seawell, J., Waste, J., Myers, C. J., Lennon, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Shamlian v. Wells Docket No. Sac. 3638. · 1925-12-30