From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruland v. All Persons

Court of Appeal of California, First District
Jun 15, 1912
19 Cal.App. 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1023.

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.

McNair Stokes, for Respondent.


This case also involves the same questions as those decided in Bagley v. Bloom et al., ante, p. 255, [ 125 P. 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.


Summaries of

Ruland v. All Persons

Court of Appeal of California, First District
Jun 15, 1912
19 Cal.App. 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
Case details for

Ruland v. All Persons

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES RULAND, Respondent, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; MARY C…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District

Date published: Jun 15, 1912

Citations

19 Cal.App. 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
125 P. 939