Reposa v. Pearce

California Court of Appeal

Reposa v. Pearce

54 P.2d 476, 11 Cal. App. 2d 520

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 30, 1936

DocketCiv. No. 9934

StatusPublished

This text of 54 P.2d 476 (Reposa v. Pearce) 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

Reposa v. Pearce, 54 P.2d 476, 11 Cal. App. 2d 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

11 Cal.App.2d 520 (1936)

JOHN REPOSA, Respondent,
v.
CARLOS PEARCE, Appellant.

Civ. No. 9934.

California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division Two.

January 30, 1936.

J. E. McCurdy and F. E. Hoffman for Appellant.

Larrouy & Macdonald for Respondent.

Nourse, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order amending a bill of exceptions in Reposa v. Pearce, No. 9829 (ante, p. 517 [54 PaCal.2d 475]). The amendment was made to include the original statements of indebtedness included in the plaintiff's claim for special damages. [1] Because of the judgment in the main case holding that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages, the question raised here has become moot.

For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

11 Cal.App.2d 520 (1936)

JOHN REPOSA, Respondent,
v.
CARLOS PEARCE, Appellant.

Civ. No. 9934.

California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division Two.

January 30, 1936.

J. E. McCurdy and F. E. Hoffman for Appellant.

Larrouy & Macdonald for Respondent.

Nourse, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order amending a bill of exceptions in Reposa v. Pearce, No. 9829 (ante, p. 517 [54 PaCal.2d 475]). The amendment was made to include the original statements of indebtedness included in the plaintiff's claim for special damages. [1] Because of the judgment in the main case holding that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages, the question raised here has become moot.

For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 P.2d 476, 11 Cal. App. 2d 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reposa-v-pearce-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

JOHN REPOSA, Respondent, v. CARLOS PEARCE, Appellant.

J. E. McCurdy and F. E. Hoffman for Appellant.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

JOHN REPOSA, Respondent,
v.
CARLOS PEARCE, Appellant.