Ferry v. Marr
PETER L. FERRY v. WINIFRED F. MARR
- 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.
This appeal is identical, as to the questions involved, with the appeal in the ease of Ferry v. O'Brien, ante, p. 629 [206 Pac. 449], and for the reasons set forth in said decision the judgment herein is affirmed.
Richards, J., pro tem., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.
Shaw, C. J., being disqualified by relationship to plaintiff’s attorney, did not participate.
Rehearing denied.
*799All the Justices concurred, except Shaw, C. J., who did not participate, owing to relationship to attorney for respondent.
Waste, J., was absent, and Richards, J., pro. tern., was acting.
Cites, in this corpus
- Ferry v. O'Brien L. A. No. 6762. · 1922-04-14