From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Danielian v. Wells

Supreme Court of California
Dec 30, 1925
197 Cal. 801 (Cal. 1925)

Opinion

Docket No. Sac. 3639.

December 30, 1925.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. J.A. Allen, Judge. Affirmed.

N. Lindsay South and Bradley Bradley for Appellants.

E.A. Bagby and E.I. Feemster for Respondent.


The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendants the value of the use and possession of a twenty-seven acre tract of producing vineyard land located in the county of Tulare. Judgment went for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $2,262. Notice of appeal was filed on behalf of all of the defendants, but said appeal as to Charles Wells and Harry Faith has been abandoned. The appeal of C.L. Caine is the only one presented for determination. The plaintiff's land adjoins the twenty-seven acre tract of land owned and described by the plaintiffs in the case of Shamlian v. Wells, ante, p. 716 [ 242 P. 483]. On this appeal it is stipulated that the facts in this case are distinguishable from the facts in that case only as to the amount of the judgment, and no point is made that the amount of the judgment was not properly ascertained. On the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.

Richards, J., Seawell, J., Waste, J., Myers, C.J., Lennon, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Danielian v. Wells

Supreme Court of California
Dec 30, 1925
197 Cal. 801 (Cal. 1925)
Case details for

Danielian v. Wells

Case Details

Full title:HAGOP DANIELIAN, Respondent, v. CHARLES WELLS et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 30, 1925

Citations

197 Cal. 801 (Cal. 1925)
242 P. 485

Citing Cases

City of West Palm Beach v. Cowart

This principle has certain well recognized exceptions, one of which is that if an error in the lower court…