Ruland v. All Persons
CHARLES RULAND v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants MARY C. BAGLEY
- Outcome
- affirmed — Judgment affirmed on the authority of Bagley v. Bloom, ante, p. 255.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Albert G. Burnett (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 — Burnett
BURNETT, J.
This case also involves the same questions as those decided in Bagley v. Bloom et al., ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion therein filed, 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.
Cites, in this corpus
- Bagley v. City & County of San Francisco Civ. No. 1041. · 1912-06-15