McNAUGHTON v. CITY OF GLENDALE, 208 Cal. 786 (1929)

282 P. 797

W.R. McNAUGHTON, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF GLENDALE (a Municipal Corporation) et al., Respondents.

Docket No. L.A. 10096.Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
December 5, 1929.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ruben S. Schmidt, Judge. Affirmed.

Chas. S. Conner for Appellant.

W. Turney Fox, City Attorney, Bernard Brennan, Deputy City Attorney, Ray L. Morrow, City Attorney, and Frank M. Moody, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondents City of Glendale and Ruth Kerns.

Arthur M. Ellis for Respondent E.L. Fleming.

THE COURT.

This cause relates to street improvement proceedings which, although instituted under a resolution of intention bearing a different number, are otherwise identical with and were started the same day as those referred to in case No. 10085, Woodill v. City of Glendale, ante, p. 564 [282 P. 797], this day decided. The pleadings in the two

Page 787

actions are in the same form and the law points made are identical. [1] Therefore, upon authority of said cause Woodill v. City of Glendale, supra, and upon the same grounds and for all the reasons set forth therein, the judgment rendered in this cause for defendants upon the sustaining of their demurrers, without leave to amend, is hereby affirmed.