Kehrlein v. Tatterson

California Court of Appeal

Kehrlein v. Tatterson

263 P. 295, 88 Cal. App. 796, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 45

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 28, 1927

DocketDocket No. 6041.

StatusPublished

This text of 263 P. 295 (Kehrlein v. Tatterson) 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

Kehrlein v. Tatterson, 263 P. 295, 88 Cal. App. 796, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.

-This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant in a suit brought by plaintiff to recover the sum of $1,500, together with interest alleged to be due and owing on a promissory note. The note in question was given as a part of the consideration of a contract entered into between Oliver Kehrlein, Emil and Emil Kehrlein, Jr., on the one hand and George W. Tatterson, J. M. Maurer, and L. B. Gross on the other, dated September 28, 1923, concerning the sale and purchase of stock of The Franklin Amusement Corporation. .

The questions presented here are passed upon in the action in which George W. Tatterson et al. are plaintiffs and respondents and Oliver Kehrlein et al. are defendants and appellants, ante, p. 34 [263 Pae. 285], and on the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.

. Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

*797 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 February 23, 1928.

All the Justices present concurred.

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

CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.

-This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant in a suit brought by plaintiff to recover the sum of $1,500, together with interest alleged to be due and owing on a promissory note. The note in question was given as a part of the consideration of a contract entered into between Oliver Kehrlein, Emil and Emil Kehrlein, Jr., on the one hand and George W. Tatterson, J. M. Maurer, and L. B. Gross on the other, dated September 28, 1923, concerning the sale and purchase of stock of The Franklin Amusement Corporation. .

The questions presented here are passed upon in the action in which George W. Tatterson et al. are plaintiffs and respondents and Oliver Kehrlein et al. are defendants and appellants, ante, p. 34 [263 Pae. 285], and on the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.

. Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

*797 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 February 23, 1928.

All the Justices present concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 P. 295, 88 Cal. App. 796, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kehrlein-v-tatterson-calctapp-1927.