Ferry v. Marr

188 Cal. 798
California Supreme Court·Decided April 14, 1922·No. L. A. No. 6761·Published

Opinion

THE COURT.

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] All 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

Ferry v. Marr, 188 Cal. 798 (Cal. 1922).

188 Cal. 798 (Ferry v. Marr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ferry v. O'Brien
206 P. 449 (California Supreme Court, 1922)