Frankel v. Deidesheimer
This text of 28 P. 794 (Frankel v. Deidesheimer) 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 cause has been long pending in this court, and has been reargued twice. One of the justices is disqualified from participating in its decision, and of the six other justices three are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and three are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Repeated consultations have ended in the same disagreement, and there is no probability of any change in the opinions of those now constituting the court, or of any immediate change in the personnel of the court. Under these circumstances we think that the judgment should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in Luco v. De Toro, 88 Cal. 26.
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harrison, being disqualified, did not participate in the foregoing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 P. 794, 93 Cal. 73, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-v-deidesheimer-cal-1892.