Van Loenen v. Gillespie
96 P. 87, 152 Cal. 222, 1907 Cal. LEXIS 332
Opinions
It is ordered that the opinion heretofore rendered by this court in Department Two in this case is adopted as the opinion by the court in Bank, and judgment affirmed accordingly.
Shaw, J., and Lorigan, J., dissented for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Woollacott v. Meekins, 151 Cal. 701, heretofore denied by the court in Bank:—
The following is the opinion of Department Two, rendered on the fourth day of April, 1907, and adopted by the court in Bank:—
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Van Loenen v. Gillespie, 96 P. 87, 152 Cal. 222, 1907 Cal. LEXIS 332 (Cal. 1907).
96 P. 87 (Van Loenen v. Gillespie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McQuiddy v. Worswick Street Paving Co.
116 P. 67 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Gay v. Engebretson
109 P. 876 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
True v. Fox
102 P. 263 (California Supreme Court, 1909)
Charters v. Stansbury
101 P. 418 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)