Joyner v. Kingsbury

111 Cal. App. 764
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Joyner v. Kingsbury. Read the opinion of the Court — 97 Cal. App. 17
California Court of Appeal·Decided January 16, 1931·No. Civ. No. 190·Published

Opinion

MARKS, J.

The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of Carr v. Kingsbury, (Civ. No. 186) ante, p. 165 [295 Pac. 586], except the description of the property upon which appellant has made his location. The decision in the Carr case has this day been filed. The questions of law involved in the instant case are identical with those in the Carr case, therefore, for the reasons given in the case of Carr v. Kingsbury, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Warmer, J., pro tem., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 11, 1931, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on March 16, 1931.

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

Joyner v. Kingsbury, 111 Cal. App. 764 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

111 Cal. App. 764 (Joyner v. Kingsbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carr v. Kingsbury
295 P. 586 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)