Ferry v. Marr
This text of 188 Cal. 798 (Ferry v. Marr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal is identical, as to the questions involved, with the appeal in the ease of Ferry v. O'Brien, ante, p. 629 [206 Pac. 449], and for the reasons set forth in said decision the judgment herein is affirmed.
Richards, J., pro tem., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.
Shaw, C. J., being disqualified by relationship to plaintiff’s attorney, did not participate.
Rehearing denied.
[799]*799All the Justices concurred, except Shaw, C. J., who did not participate, owing to relationship to attorney for respondent.
Waste, J., was absent, and Richards, J., pro. tern., was acting.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
188 Cal. 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferry-v-marr-cal-1922.