Hindman v. Owl Drug Co.

33 P.2d 1026, 1 Cal. 2d 142, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 340
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hindman v. Owl Drug Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 4 Cal. 2d 451
California Supreme Court·Decided June 26, 1934·No. L. A. No. 14545·Published

Opinion

THE COURT.

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal of the intervener Florence Brown upon the grounds, first, that she no longer has any interest in the subject matter of the litigation, and, as to her, the questions involved in the appeal have become moot, and on the further (second) ground that she has failed to perfect the appeal within the time required by law.

Both grounds of the motion are good. The first has been considered and held to be a sufficient reason for dismissing the appeal in the opinion and decision this day rendered in Hindman v. Owl Drug Co. (L. A. No. 14375),

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

Hindman v. Owl Drug Co., 33 P.2d 1026, 1 Cal. 2d 142, 1934 Cal. LEXIS 340 (Cal. 1934).

33 P.2d 1026 (Hindman v. Owl Drug Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.