Doty v. Matson

California Court of Appeal

Doty v. Matson

37 Cal. App. 817

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 5, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Cal. App. 817 (Doty v. Matson) 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

Doty v. Matson, 37 Cal. App. 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

CHIPMAN, P. J.

This is an appeal by defendants Matson, Braun and Hale from the judgment made and entered in the cause entitled W. M. Doty v. California Rice Milling Co. et al., ante, p. 449, [174 Pac. 389], which latter case was this day decided and the judgment therein reversed. Referring to that case, respondent says in his brief: “If our vendor’s lien is sustained we satisfy it out of the property and that alone. If it is not sustained we get nothing.” In considering the case No. 1840 we were constrained to hold that the plaintiff’s alleged vendor’s lien was not sustained and that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for.

We see no reason for appellants taking this separate appeal upon a separate record.

The judgment is reversed, each party to pay his own costs of the appeal.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

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

CHIPMAN, P. J.

This is an appeal by defendants Matson, Braun and Hale from the judgment made and entered in the cause entitled W. M. Doty v. California Rice Milling Co. et al., ante, p. 449, [174 Pac. 389], which latter case was this day decided and the judgment therein reversed. Referring to that case, respondent says in his brief: “If our vendor’s lien is sustained we satisfy it out of the property and that alone. If it is not sustained we get nothing.” In considering the case No. 1840 we were constrained to hold that the plaintiff’s alleged vendor’s lien was not sustained and that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for.

We see no reason for appellants taking this separate appeal upon a separate record.

The judgment is reversed, each party to pay his own costs of the appeal.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Cal. App. 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doty-v-matson-calctapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack