Mahin v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association

California Court of Appeal

Mahin v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association

22 P.2d 726, 132 Cal. App. 786, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 494

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 2, 1933

DocketDocket No. 4786.

StatusPublished

This text of 22 P.2d 726 (Mahin v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association) 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

Mahin v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Association, 22 P.2d 726, 132 Cal. App. 786, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] This case involves the same questions of law and fact as those presented in the cases of Kiku Saito v. Policy HoldersLife Insurance Assn., ante, p. 412 [22 P.2d 724], andTodome Arao v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Assn., ante, p. 785 [22 P.2d 726], this day decided by this court, save and except the name of the plaintiff and the dates of the transactions involved, and the further exception that the complaint in this case does not set out a copy of the policy of insurance, and the application therefor, signed by the insured, showing his address to be in San Joaquin County, nor that the policy of insurance was executed in San Joaquin County, as does the complaint in each of those cases. And, on authority of those cases and the cases relied upon and cited by us in those cases, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Thompson, J., and Pullen, P.J., concurred.

*Page 1

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

[1] This case involves the same questions of law and fact as those presented in the cases of Kiku Saito v. Policy HoldersLife Insurance Assn., ante, p. 412 [22 P.2d 724], andTodome Arao v. Policy Holders Life Insurance Assn., ante, p. 785 [22 P.2d 726], this day decided by this court, save and except the name of the plaintiff and the dates of the transactions involved, and the further exception that the complaint in this case does not set out a copy of the policy of insurance, and the application therefor, signed by the insured, showing his address to be in San Joaquin County, nor that the policy of insurance was executed in San Joaquin County, as does the complaint in each of those cases. And, on authority of those cases and the cases relied upon and cited by us in those cases, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Thompson, J., and Pullen, P.J., concurred.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 P.2d 726, 132 Cal. App. 786, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahin-v-policy-holders-life-insurance-association-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack