Paddon v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Paddon v. Superior Court

65 Cal. App. 790

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 21, 1923

DocketCiv. No. 4789

StatusPublished

This text of 65 Cal. App. 790 (Paddon v. Superior Court) 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

Paddon v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. App. 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

ST. SURE, J.

The questions presented in the above-entitled proceeding are the same as those involved in proceeding numbered 4790 of the same title, this day decided. Upon the authority of that case we are of the opinion that the proceedings had in the court below, in the action entitled Una Margaret Locke Paddon, Plaintiff, v. William Locke Paddon et als., Defendants, which said action is numbered 128432, ante, p. 34 [223 Pac. 91., in the office of the county clerk of the city and county of San Francisco, state, of California, are proper and should be affirmed. It is so ordered and the writ is dismissed.

Tyler, P. J., concurred.

A petition for rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on January 19, 1924, and an application by petitioner 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 18', 1924.

All the Justices concurred.

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

ST. SURE, J.

The questions presented in the above-entitled proceeding are the same as those involved in proceeding numbered 4790 of the same title, this day decided. Upon the authority of that case we are of the opinion that the proceedings had in the court below, in the action entitled Una Margaret Locke Paddon, Plaintiff, v. William Locke Paddon et als., Defendants, which said action is numbered 128432, ante, p. 34 [223 Pac. 91., in the office of the county clerk of the city and county of San Francisco, state, of California, are proper and should be affirmed. It is so ordered and the writ is dismissed.

Tyler, P. J., concurred.

A petition for rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on January 19, 1924, and an application by petitioner 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 18', 1924.

All the Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Cal. App. 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paddon-v-superior-court-calctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack