Peterson v. Ball
Fred E. Peterson v. W.F. Ball
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- W. D. McConnell
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
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 COURT.
In this action the same questions are presented as were before the court in the case of Fred E. Peterson v. W.F. Ball (L.A. No. 10957), ante, p. 461 [296 P. 291], this day decided. The parties are practically the same in each action and the only difference in the two relates to the amount of the indebtedness claimed to have been illegally incurred. The same procedure was had in this action as was taken in the prior action, L.A. No. 10957, and resulted in a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants herein. [1] On the authority of the prior action, the judgment herein is affirmed.
*Page 1
Cites, in this corpus
- Peterson v. Ball Docket No. L.A. 10957. · 1931-01-30
Cited by
- Merrill v. Los Angeles Cotton Mills, Inc. Docket No. 4476. · 1932-01-23
- Hess v. Country Club Park Docket No. L.A. 10786. · 1931-08-31