From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bagley v. Lilienthal

Court of Appeal of California, First District
Jun 15, 1912
19 Cal.App. 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1042.

June 15, 1912.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge.

The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion of the court in Bagley v. Bloom, ante, p. 255.

John Hubert Mee, for Appellant.

Olney, Pringle Mannon, for Respondents.


This case involves the same questions as Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [ 125 P. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed therein, 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.


Summaries of

Bagley v. Lilienthal

Court of Appeal of California, First District
Jun 15, 1912
19 Cal.App. 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
Case details for

Bagley v. Lilienthal

Case Details

Full title:MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant, v. JESSE W. LILIENTHAL et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District

Date published: Jun 15, 1912

Citations

19 Cal.App. 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
125 P. 938