Fordyce v. Spiegl

California Court of Appeal

Fordyce v. Spiegl

166 P. 1014, 34 Cal. App. 802, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 179

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 20, 1917

DocketCiv. No. 2056.

StatusPublished

This text of 166 P. 1014 (Fordyce v. Spiegl) 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

Fordyce v. Spiegl, 166 P. 1014, 34 Cal. App. 802, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 179 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

The facts of this case are in all respects identical with the facts in the case of Kerner v. Spiegl, ante, p. 162, [166 P. 1013], pending in this court, and this day decided, and the opinion in that case is equally applicable to the present one.

The order denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed.

Beasly, J., pro tem., 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 16, 1917. *Page 803

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

The facts of this case are in all respects identical with the facts in the case of Kerner v. Spiegl, ante, p. 162, [166 P. 1013], pending in this court, and this day decided, and the opinion in that case is equally applicable to the present one.

The order denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed.

Beasly, J., pro tem., 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 16, 1917. *Page 803

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 P. 1014, 34 Cal. App. 802, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fordyce-v-spiegl-calctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack