People v. Hendrickson

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 11391; Civ. No. 11392; Civ. No. 11393 · 1937-05-07 · Published · 20 Cal. App. 2d 748 · 67 P.2d 754 · 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 876

THE PEOPLE v. PAUL HENDRICKSON, Respondent THE PEOPLE v. HOME BRAND BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent THE PEOPLE v. JINRICKY COMPANY, INC. (a Corporation)

Area: criminal
Panel: Crail (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 — Crail

CRAIL, P. J.

These three cases are similar in the pleadings, except as to names and amounts, and in the judgments rendered, to the case of People v. Tux Winery Co., No. 11351, this day decided (ante, p. 700 [67 Pac. (2d) 752]) by this court. The appeals were taken five weeks later. The parties have now stipulated in writing that these cases may be submitted for decision on the briefs on file in the Tux Winery Company case.

For the reasons stated in the decision in that case, we also affirm the judgments in these eases.

Judgments affirmed.

Wood, J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Tux Winery Co. Civ. 11351 · 1937-05-07