Argula v. Pavlovski

California Court of Appeal

Argula v. Pavlovski

83 Cal. App. 796

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 11, 1927

DocketCiv. No. 4726

StatusPublished

This text of 83 Cal. App. 796 (Argula v. Pavlovski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Argula v. Pavlovski, 83 Cal. App. 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

HOUSER, J.

This is an appeal from a money judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of $366.

The facts in the case, as determined by the trial court, are nearly an exact duplicate of those found in the companion case of Pozen v. Pavlovski, ante, p. 23 [256 Pac. 446], this day determined by this court, to which reference may be had.

With reference to the briefs filed by appellants, an identical situation is presented as is presented in the Pozen case. The two cases were tried together and the evidence in the one case is similar to that adduced in the other. In other words, it may be said that in no respect, whether in the pleadings, the evidence, the findings, judgment of the court, the appeal, or the briefs, does one of the cases present any substantial difference from the other.

Relying on the authority of the said case of Pozen v. Pavlovski, ante, p. 23 [256 Pac. 446], it is ordered that the judgment in the instant case be and it is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and York, J'., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOUSER, J.

This is an appeal from a money judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of $366.

The facts in the case, as determined by the trial court, are nearly an exact duplicate of those found in the companion case of Pozen v. Pavlovski, ante, p. 23 [256 Pac. 446], this day determined by this court, to which reference may be had.

With reference to the briefs filed by appellants, an identical situation is presented as is presented in the Pozen case. The two cases were tried together and the evidence in the one case is similar to that adduced in the other. In other words, it may be said that in no respect, whether in the pleadings, the evidence, the findings, judgment of the court, the appeal, or the briefs, does one of the cases present any substantial difference from the other.

Relying on the authority of the said case of Pozen v. Pavlovski, ante, p. 23 [256 Pac. 446], it is ordered that the judgment in the instant case be and it is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and York, J'., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Cal. App. 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/argula-v-pavlovski-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack