Category: California Courts of Appeal Opinions

[Civ. No. 8991. First Appellate District, Division One. December 4, 1934.] MARIE JEANNERETTE, Appellant, v. J. HARTLEY TAYLOR et. al., Respondents. COUNSEL Waldo, Hinds & Lawrence and Cornelius T. Waldo for Appellant. Brooks Gifford and T. W. Ward for Respondents. OPINION The Court An action to cancel a deed and to quiet plaintiff’s alleged title […]

[Civ. Nos. 9762, 9835. Second Appellate District, Division Two. December 3, 1934.] BARBARA HAUG et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents. (Two Cases.) COUNSEL E. Neal Ames for Petitioners. Everett W. Mattoon, County Counsel, S. V. O. Prichard, Deputy County Counsel, and Roy A. Linn for Respondents. OPINION […]

[Civ. No. 9531. First Appellate District, Division Two. December 3, 1934.] GEORGE W. WAGNER, Appellant, v. G. W. McMANUS, Respondent. COUNSEL Rodgers & Costello for Appellant. Byrl R. Salsman for Respondent. OPINION Nourse, P. J. Plaintiff sought to collect unpaid rent, basing his claim on an alleged written agreement to lease signed by the defendant. […]

[Civ. No. 8910. First Appellate District, Division One. December 3, 1934.] MATILDA MORRIS, Appellant, v. PURITY SAUSAGE COMPANY (a Copartnership) et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Ingemar E. Hoberg for Appellant. Cooley, Crowley & Supple for Respondents. OPINION The Court. Plaintiff was struck and injured by an automobile operated by the defendants. The injury occurred while she […]

[Civ. No. 9168. First Appellate District, Division One. December 3, 1934.] PAUL F. SPEIDEL, Appellant, v. E. B. LACER (a Former Copartnership, etc.) et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Ford & Johnson for Appellant. Joseph T. O’Connor, R. E. Fitzgerald and Leo R. Friedman for Respondents. OPINION Johnston, J., pro tem. The facts in the above-entitled cause […]

[Civ. No. 5075. Third Appellate District. December 1, 1934.] JOHN J. KELLER, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. COUNSEL H. L. Preston and Frank W. Taft for Appellant. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Hale McCowan, Jr., Alfred Sutro, Eugene M. Prince and Samuel L. Wright for Respondent. OPINION […]

[Civ. No. 9195. First Appellate District, Division One. November 30, 1934.] E. F. KRAEMER, Respondent, v. JOSEPH COWARD et al., Appellants. COUNSEL Clark, Nichols & Eltse for Appellants. John Ralph Wilson and Carl E. Day for Respondent. OPINION Johnston, J., pro tem. An action was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California […]

[Civ. No. 8066. Second Appellate District, Division One. November 28, 1934.] JOHN V. BARROW et al., Appellants, v. ROSALYN I. SIMON, as Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Charles E. Carter, Martin M. Levering and Henry Trowbridge for Appellants. Black, Hammack & Black and Black, Hammack & McWilliams for Respondent Simon. OPINION Schauer, J., pro […]

[Civ. No. 1145. Fourth Appellate District. November 28, 1934.] THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HERBERT A. CROGHAN, Defendant and Appellant; AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant and Respondent; M. W. CONKLING, Intervener and Appellant. COUNSEL M. W. Conkling, in pro. per., and Harry W. Horton for Appellants. Thomas Whelan, District […]

[Civ. No. 8841. Second Appellate District, Division Two. November 28, 1934.] RICHARD BARTHELMESS, Respondent, v. WM. CAVALIER et al., Appellants. COUNSEL O’Melveny, Tuller & Myers, Pierce Works and Jackson W. Chance for Appellants. Mott, Vallee & Grant and Kenneth E. Grant for Respondent. OPINION Yankwich, J., pro tem. [1] Under the provisions of section 629 […]

[Civ. No. 9807. Second Appellate District, Division Two. November 28, 1934.] EDWIN A. MESERVE et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents. [Civ. No. 9808. Second Appellate District, Division Two. November 28, 1934.] HOLLYWOOD CLEANING & PRESSING COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY […]

[Crim. No. 2523. Second Appellate District, Division One. November 28, 1934.] THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRANK PACE, Appellant. COUNSEL Frederic H. Vercoe, Public Defender, and William B. Neeley, Deputy Public Defender, for Appellant. U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Eugene M. Elson, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. OPINION Elliot Craig, J., pro tem. Defendant was charged in count […]

[Civ. No. 9197. First Appellate District, Division One. November 28, 1934.] JACK GOSS, a Minor, etc., Appellant, v. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Respondent. COUNSEL Colding, Hale, Crawford & Myers for Appellant. Cooley, Crowley & Supple for Respondent. OPINION Johnston, J., pro tem. This is an appeal by plaintiff from an adverse judgment […]

[Civ. No. 1515. Fourth Appellate District. November 27, 1934.] THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SANTA ANA (a National Banking Association), Respondent, v. LENORA E. KINSLOW, Appellant. COUNSEL Arthur E. Koepsel for Appellant. Forgy, Reinhaus & Forgy and R. M. Crookshank for Respondent. [2 Cal. App. 2d 457] OPINION Barnard, P. J. The respondent brought this […]

[Civ. No. 9364. First Appellate District, Division One. December 4, 1934.] SAN FRANCISCO MILLING COMPANY, LTD., Respondent, v. FRYE AND COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. COUNSEL Joseph A. Brown for Appellant. Carl R. Schulz and Norman A. Eisner for Respondent. OPINION Jamison, J., pro tem. This is an action upon a contract for the sale by […]

[Crim. No. 1392. Third Appellate District. December 3, 1934.] THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JAMES B. O’NEAL et al., Appellants. COUNSEL James B. O’Neal, in pro. per., Paul E. Gehres and O. C. Parkinson for Appellants. U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Ralph H. Cowing, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. OPINION Thompson, J. The defendants were jointly charged under […]

[Civ. Nos. 9762, 9835. Second Appellate District, Division Two. December 3, 1934.] BARBARA HAUG et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents. (Two Cases.) COUNSEL E. Neal Ames for Petitioners. Everett W. Mattoon, County Counsel, S. V. O. Prichard, Deputy County Counsel, and Roy A. Linn for Respondents. OPINION […]

[Civ. No. 9531. First Appellate District, Division Two. December 3, 1934.] GEORGE W. WAGNER, Appellant, v. G. W. McMANUS, Respondent. COUNSEL Rodgers & Costello for Appellant. Byrl R. Salsman for Respondent. OPINION Nourse, P. J. Plaintiff sought to collect unpaid rent, basing his claim on an alleged written agreement to lease signed by the defendant. […]

[Civ. No. 8910. First Appellate District, Division One. December 3, 1934.] MATILDA MORRIS, Appellant, v. PURITY SAUSAGE COMPANY (a Copartnership) et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Ingemar E. Hoberg for Appellant. Cooley, Crowley & Supple for Respondents. OPINION The Court. Plaintiff was struck and injured by an automobile operated by the defendants. The injury occurred while she […]

[Civ. No. 9168. First Appellate District, Division One. December 3, 1934.] PAUL F. SPEIDEL, Appellant, v. E. B. LACER (a Former Copartnership, etc.) et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Ford & Johnson for Appellant. Joseph T. O’Connor, R. E. Fitzgerald and Leo R. Friedman for Respondents. OPINION Johnston, J., pro tem. The facts in the above-entitled cause […]

[Civ. No. 5075. Third Appellate District. December 1, 1934.] JOHN J. KELLER, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. COUNSEL H. L. Preston and Frank W. Taft for Appellant. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Hale McCowan, Jr., Alfred Sutro, Eugene M. Prince and Samuel L. Wright for Respondent. OPINION […]

[Civ. No. 9195. First Appellate District, Division One. November 30, 1934.] E. F. KRAEMER, Respondent, v. JOSEPH COWARD et al., Appellants. COUNSEL Clark, Nichols & Eltse for Appellants. John Ralph Wilson and Carl E. Day for Respondent. OPINION Johnston, J., pro tem. An action was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California […]

[Civ. No. 8066. Second Appellate District, Division One. November 28, 1934.] JOHN V. BARROW et al., Appellants, v. ROSALYN I. SIMON, as Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents. COUNSEL Charles E. Carter, Martin M. Levering and Henry Trowbridge for Appellants. Black, Hammack & Black and Black, Hammack & McWilliams for Respondent Simon. OPINION Schauer, J., pro […]

[Civ. No. 1145. Fourth Appellate District. November 28, 1934.] THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HERBERT A. CROGHAN, Defendant and Appellant; AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant and Respondent; M. W. CONKLING, Intervener and Appellant. COUNSEL M. W. Conkling, in pro. per., and Harry W. Horton for Appellants. Thomas Whelan, District […]

[Civ. No. 8841. Second Appellate District, Division Two. November 28, 1934.] RICHARD BARTHELMESS, Respondent, v. WM. CAVALIER et al., Appellants. COUNSEL O’Melveny, Tuller & Myers, Pierce Works and Jackson W. Chance for Appellants. Mott, Vallee & Grant and Kenneth E. Grant for Respondent. OPINION Yankwich, J., pro tem. [1] Under the provisions of section 629 […]