Opinion
Page __
__ Cal.App.2d __248 P.2d 533Carl M. FRAENKEL, doing business as The Matthis Company, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.J. G. TRESCONY and Marie G. Trescony, Defendants and Respondents.Carl M. FRAENKEL, doing business as The Matthis Company, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.Lucio ECHENIQUE, Patricia Echenique, Ricardo Echenique, Francis D. Echenique and Luis Echenique, individually and doing business as Echenique Co., Defendants and Respondents.Carl M. FRAENKEL, doing business as The Matthis Company, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.ANSBERRY CO., a corporation, and Adrian Ansberry, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. Nos. 14962-14964.California Court of Appeals, First District, Second DivisionOct. 10, 1952.Hearing Granted Dec. 8, 1952.
Rehearings Denied Nov. 8, 1952.
Jack Flinn, San Francisco, Carroll F. Jacoby, San Francisco, for appellant.
John W. Hutton, King City, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
The facts and issues in these proceedings are similar to those involved in the case of Fraenkel v. Williamson, Cal.App., 248 P.2d 531. For the reasons therein stated the judgment in each of the three above-entitled causes is reversed and the cause remanded with the direction to the Superior Court to enter an order permitting the plaintiff to amend his complaint within a reasonable time to be fixed by said Court.