Bagley v. Lilienthal

California Court of Appeal

Bagley v. Lilienthal

19 Cal. App. 273

California Court of Appeal·Decided June 15, 1912·No. Civ. No. 1042·Published

Opinion

BURNETT, J.

This ease involves the same questions as Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed therein, 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.

This ease involves the same questions as Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed therein, 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. Lilienthal, 19 Cal. App. 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

19 Cal. App. 273 (Bagley v. Lilienthal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related