Frank v. State of California

California Supreme Court

Frank v. State of California

99 P. 189, 154 Cal. 730, 1908 Cal. LEXIS 387

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 21, 1908

DocketSac. No. 1573.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 P. 189 (Frank v. State of California) 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.

Bluebook

Frank v. State of California, 99 P. 189, 154 Cal. 730, 1908 Cal. LEXIS 387 (Cal. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, as holder of sixty-five Montgomery Avenue bonds and 2,975 coupons, sues to recover the amount of said bonds and coupons from the state of California. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant upon the sustaining of its demurrer to the complaint.

The complaint is in all substantial particulars identical with that in Union Trust Company of San Francisco against the State of California, Sacramento No. 1570, ante p. 716, [99 P. 183], decided this day, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case it must be held that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Angellotti, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J., and Melvin, J., concurred. *Page 731

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

The plaintiff, as holder of sixty-five Montgomery Avenue bonds and 2,975 coupons, sues to recover the amount of said bonds and coupons from the state of California. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant upon the sustaining of its demurrer to the complaint.

The complaint is in all substantial particulars identical with that in Union Trust Company of San Francisco against the State of California, Sacramento No. 1570, ante p. 716, [99 P. 183], decided this day, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case it must be held that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Angellotti, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J., and Melvin, J., concurred. *Page 731

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 P. 189, 154 Cal. 730, 1908 Cal. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-state-of-california-cal-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack