Bagley v. Devlin

California Court of Appeal

Bagley v. Devlin

19 Cal. App. 274

California Court of Appeal·Decided June 15, 1912·No. Civ. No. 1043·Published

Opinion

BURNETT, J.

Respondent relies upon adverse possession, in addition to the defenses presented in the case of Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], but it is unnecessary to give the question specific attention. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed this day in Bagley v. Bloom et al., supra, 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.

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

BURNETT, J.

Respondent relies upon adverse possession, in addition to the defenses presented in the case of Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], but it is unnecessary to give the question specific attention. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed this day in Bagley v. Bloom et al., supra, 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.

Bagley v. Devlin, 19 Cal. App. 274 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

19 Cal. App. 274 (Bagley v. Devlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related