From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. Ball

Supreme Court of California
Jan 30, 1931
211 Cal. 779 (Cal. 1931)

Opinion

Docket No. L.A. 10958.

January 30, 1931.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. W.D. McConnell, Judge. Affirmed.

Hugh M. Foster for Appellants.

Overton, Lyman Plumb, Lawler Degnan and Barry Brannen for Respondents.

Brobeck, Phleger Harrison, Winfield Dorn, Arthur L. Shannon, Anderson Anderson Sheahan, Call Murphy, George W. Fenimore, Chandler, Wright Ward and Chandler P. Ward, as Amici Curiae.


THE COURT.

In this action the same questions are presented as were before the court in the case of Fred E. Peterson v. W.F. Ball (L.A. No. 10957), ante, p. 461 [ 296 P. 291], this day decided. The parties are practically the same in each action and the only difference in the two relates to the amount of the indebtedness claimed to have been illegally incurred. The same procedure was had in this action as was taken in the prior action, L.A. No. 10957, and resulted in a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants herein. [1] On the authority of the prior action, the judgment herein is affirmed.


Summaries of

Peterson v. Ball

Supreme Court of California
Jan 30, 1931
211 Cal. 779 (Cal. 1931)
Case details for

Peterson v. Ball

Case Details

Full title:FRED E. PETERSON et al., Appellants, v. W.F. BALL et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 30, 1931

Citations

211 Cal. 779 (Cal. 1931)
296 P. 300

Citing Cases

Merrill v. Los Angeles Cotton Mills, Inc.

The complaint in this action alleges that the defendants acted in concert to effectuate the tort complained…

Hess v. Country Club Park

For this reason we adopt as and for the decision of this court the following portion of the opinion prepared…