Hammond v. Omar's Dome

California Court of Appeal

Hammond v. Omar's Dome

89 P.2d 412, 32 Cal. App. 2d 734, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 428

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 17, 1939

DocketCiv. 11753

StatusPublished

This text of 89 P.2d 412 (Hammond v. Omar's Dome) 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

Hammond v. Omar's Dome, 89 P.2d 412, 32 Cal. App. 2d 734, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

YORK, P. J.

On August 25, 1937, appellant commenced the instant action to abate a nuisance resulting from the alleged illegal sale of alcoholic beverages at 436-438-440 South Hill Street, in the city of Los Angeles, pursuant to the provisions of the Unlawful Liquor Sales Abatement Act (Act 3778, Gen. Laws, Stats. 1915, p. 236). The complaint alleged that defendants, in violation of section 22, article XX of the Constitution (as amended Nov. 6, 1934), and in violation of subdivision “m” of section 2, and of section 53 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Stats. 1935, p. 1123, as amended by Stats. 1937, pp. 1934, 2126), “are maintaining and conducting upon the premises herein described a public saloon, public bar and public barroom, in which intoxicating liquors (other than beers) are being unlawfully sold and served to the general public”.

A general and special demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend, and thereafter, the court having denied appellant’s motion for permission to file an *735 amended complaint, a judgment of dismissal was entered, This appeal is taken from such judgment.

The facts in the instant case are the same in legal effect as the facts alleged in the complaint in the case of Hammond v. McDonald et ux, Civil No. 11752 (ante, p. 187 [89 Pac. (2d) 407]) this day decided. The principles of law involved herein are identical with those involved in the case to which reference has just been made. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of dismissal herein is reversed, and the trial court is directed to permit the filing of appellant’s amended complaint.

Doran, J., and White, J., concurred.

A petition by respondents to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 15, 1939. Langdon, J., voted for a hearing.

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

YORK, P. J.

On August 25, 1937, appellant commenced the instant action to abate a nuisance resulting from the alleged illegal sale of alcoholic beverages at 436-438-440 South Hill Street, in the city of Los Angeles, pursuant to the provisions of the Unlawful Liquor Sales Abatement Act (Act 3778, Gen. Laws, Stats. 1915, p. 236). The complaint alleged that defendants, in violation of section 22, article XX of the Constitution (as amended Nov. 6, 1934), and in violation of subdivision “m” of section 2, and of section 53 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Stats. 1935, p. 1123, as amended by Stats. 1937, pp. 1934, 2126), “are maintaining and conducting upon the premises herein described a public saloon, public bar and public barroom, in which intoxicating liquors (other than beers) are being unlawfully sold and served to the general public”.

A general and special demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend, and thereafter, the court having denied appellant’s motion for permission to file an *735 amended complaint, a judgment of dismissal was entered, This appeal is taken from such judgment.

The facts in the instant case are the same in legal effect as the facts alleged in the complaint in the case of Hammond v. McDonald et ux, Civil No. 11752 (ante, p. 187 [89 Pac. (2d) 407]) this day decided. The principles of law involved herein are identical with those involved in the case to which reference has just been made. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of dismissal herein is reversed, and the trial court is directed to permit the filing of appellant’s amended complaint.

Doran, J., and White, J., concurred.

A petition by respondents to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 15, 1939. Langdon, J., voted for a hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 P.2d 412, 32 Cal. App. 2d 734, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-omars-dome-calctapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack