Merrick Ruddick v. Title Insurance Trust Co.

California Court of Appeal

Merrick Ruddick v. Title Insurance Trust Co.

5 P.2d 71, 118 Cal. App. 758

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 6, 1931

DocketDocket No. 7996.

StatusPublished

This text of 5 P.2d 71 (Merrick Ruddick v. Title Insurance Trust Co.) 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

Merrick Ruddick v. Title Insurance Trust Co., 5 P.2d 71, 118 Cal. App. 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM CASES. This is an appeal by plaintiff from the same judgment which we had under consideration in Merrick Ruddick, Inc., v.Security Trust Savings Bank, (No. 7995) ante, p. 219 [5 P.2d 67]. Plaintiff here complains of the method adopted in computing the amount of the judgment, contending that it was entitled to judgment in a larger sum. We deem it unnecessary to discuss the propriety of the method adopted as we are of the opinion that plaintiff was not entitled to an accounting nor to any judgment against defendants.

[1] For the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed inMerrick Ruddick, Inc., v. Security Trust Savings Bank, (No. 7995) supra, the judgment is reversed, respondents herein to recover their costs.

Nourse, P.J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred. *Page 759

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

MEMORANDUM CASES. This is an appeal by plaintiff from the same judgment which we had under consideration in Merrick Ruddick, Inc., v.Security Trust Savings Bank, (No. 7995) ante, p. 219 [5 P.2d 67]. Plaintiff here complains of the method adopted in computing the amount of the judgment, contending that it was entitled to judgment in a larger sum. We deem it unnecessary to discuss the propriety of the method adopted as we are of the opinion that plaintiff was not entitled to an accounting nor to any judgment against defendants.

[1] For the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed inMerrick Ruddick, Inc., v. Security Trust Savings Bank, (No. 7995) supra, the judgment is reversed, respondents herein to recover their costs.

Nourse, P.J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred. *Page 759

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 P.2d 71, 118 Cal. App. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrick-ruddick-v-title-insurance-trust-co-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack