Heinfelt v. Arth

135 Cal. App. 789
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 24, 1933
DocketCiv. No. 1431
StatusPublished

This text of 135 Cal. App. 789 (Heinfelt v. Arth) 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
Heinfelt v. Arth, 135 Cal. App. 789 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

In so far as they relate to the only question to be here decided, the facts in this case are similar in all respects to the facts in the case of P. A. Heinfelt and M. G. Hoffman, Copartners, Doing Business Under the Fictitious Firm Name and Style of National Realty Company v. Fred Arth, Civil No. 1430 (ante, p. 445 [27 Pac. (2d) 420]), this day decided, and the question of law presented is identical with the question decided in that case. Upon authority of the case referred to and for the reasons there given, the judgment here appealed from is reversed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, 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 January 22, 1934.

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

Related

Heinfelt v. Arth
27 P.2d 420 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 Cal. App. 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinfelt-v-arth-calctapp-1933.