F.L. Feisthamel v. W.S. Kingsbury

California Court of Appeal

F.L. Feisthamel v. W.S. Kingsbury

295 P. 590, 111 Cal. App. 762, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1261

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 16, 1931

DocketDocket No. 188.

StatusPublished

This text of 295 P. 590 (F.L. Feisthamel v. W.S. Kingsbury) 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

F.L. Feisthamel v. W.S. Kingsbury, 295 P. 590, 111 Cal. App. 762, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1261 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of Carr v. Kinsbury, (Civ. No. 186) ante, p. 165 [295 P. 586], except the description of the property *Page 763 upon which appellant has made his location. The decision in the Carr case has this day been filed. The questions of law involved in the instant case are identical with those in the Carr case, therefore, for the reasons given in the case of Carr v.Kingsbury, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Barnard, P.J., and Warmer, J., pro tem, concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 11, 1931, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on March 16, 1931.

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

[1] The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of Carr v. Kinsbury, (Civ. No. 186) ante, p. 165 [295 P. 586], except the description of the property *Page 763 upon which appellant has made his location. The decision in the Carr case has this day been filed. The questions of law involved in the instant case are identical with those in the Carr case, therefore, for the reasons given in the case of Carr v.Kingsbury, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Barnard, P.J., and Warmer, J., pro tem, concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 11, 1931, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on March 16, 1931.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 P. 590, 111 Cal. App. 762, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fl-feisthamel-v-ws-kingsbury-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack