Scheibe v. Scheibe

California Court of Appeal

Scheibe v. Scheibe

134 P.2d 841, 57 Cal. App. 2d 1019, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 470

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 26, 1943

DocketCiv. No. 12189

StatusPublished

This text of 134 P.2d 841 (Scheibe v. Scheibe) 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

Scheibe v. Scheibe, 134 P.2d 841, 57 Cal. App. 2d 1019, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

KNIGHT, J.

Plaintiff appealed from judgments entered in two actions brought- by him against his wife. One was for divorce, and the other (the present one) for the partition of a sum of money on deposit in a joint tenancy account carried by them with San Jose Building-Loan Association, in which the latter was joined as a party defendant. Both appeals were presented on a record consisting of two clerk’s transcripts, one reporter’s transcript and one set of briefs. The judgment in the divorce action has this day been affirmed (appeal No. 12188, ante, p. 336 [134 P.2d 835]), and all questions involved in the present appeal are therein discussed and decided. Por the reasons set forth therein, the judgment in the present case is likewise affirmed.

Peters, P. J., and Ward, J., concurred.

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

KNIGHT, J.

Plaintiff appealed from judgments entered in two actions brought- by him against his wife. One was for divorce, and the other (the present one) for the partition of a sum of money on deposit in a joint tenancy account carried by them with San Jose Building-Loan Association, in which the latter was joined as a party defendant. Both appeals were presented on a record consisting of two clerk’s transcripts, one reporter’s transcript and one set of briefs. The judgment in the divorce action has this day been affirmed (appeal No. 12188, ante, p. 336 [134 P.2d 835]), and all questions involved in the present appeal are therein discussed and decided. Por the reasons set forth therein, the judgment in the present case is likewise affirmed.

Peters, P. J., and Ward, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 P.2d 841, 57 Cal. App. 2d 1019, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheibe-v-scheibe-calctapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack