Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.

California Court of Appeal

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.

141 P.2d 19, 60 Cal. App. 2d 845, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 595

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 21, 1943

DocketCiv. No. 12584

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 P.2d 19 (Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining 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

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 141 P.2d 19, 60 Cal. App. 2d 845, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 595 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERS, P. J.

This is the second appeal in this ease. On the prior appeal the judgment was affirmed, without dissent, except as to an item of interest. (55 Cal.App.2d 720 [132 P.2d 70], at p. 774 [p. 101].) A petition for rehearing was denied, one justice voting to grant the same. The majority and dissenting justices filed opinions on such denial. (55 Cal.App.2d at p. 774.) The Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. (55 Cal.App.2d at p. 775.) Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for certiorari. (- U.S. - [63 S.Ct. 1435, 87 L. Ed. -].)

After the return of the remittitur to the trial court, it amended its findings, conclusions and judgment in relation to the item of interest above mentioned, as directed by this court. From this modified judgment the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company prosecutes this appeal on the same record (sup[846]*846plemented by the amended findings, conclusions and judgment) and on the same briefs as were presented on the prior appeal. No contention is made that the modified judgment is not in exact accord with the instructions to the trial court set forth in the prior opinion. Upon the authority of, and for the reasons set forth in, the prior opinion the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Ward, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 25, 1943.

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

PETERS, P. J.

This is the second appeal in this ease. On the prior appeal the judgment was affirmed, without dissent, except as to an item of interest. (55 Cal.App.2d 720 [132 P.2d 70], at p. 774 [p. 101].) A petition for rehearing was denied, one justice voting to grant the same. The majority and dissenting justices filed opinions on such denial. (55 Cal.App.2d at p. 774.) The Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. (55 Cal.App.2d at p. 775.) Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for certiorari. (- U.S. - [63 S.Ct. 1435, 87 L. Ed. -].)

After the return of the remittitur to the trial court, it amended its findings, conclusions and judgment in relation to the item of interest above mentioned, as directed by this court. From this modified judgment the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company prosecutes this appeal on the same record (sup[846]*846plemented by the amended findings, conclusions and judgment) and on the same briefs as were presented on the prior appeal. No contention is made that the modified judgment is not in exact accord with the instructions to the trial court set forth in the prior opinion. Upon the authority of, and for the reasons set forth in, the prior opinion the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Ward, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 25, 1943.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 P.2d 19, 60 Cal. App. 2d 845, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-benguet-consolidated-mining-co-calctapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack