From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. City of Piedmont

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Sep 24, 1929
100 Cal.App. 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)

Opinion

Docket No. 6848.

September 24, 1929.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Alameda County. John J. Allen, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Girard N. Richardson for Appellant.

Breed, Burpee Robinson for Respondents.


From each of three declaratory judgments the defendant has appealed. [1] In each case the point is made that the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of Ordinance No. 268 of the City of Piedmont. On the authority of Andrews v. City of Piedmont (No. 6624), ante, p. 700 [ 281 P. 78], this day filed, the point may not be sustained. In the view we take of the record it is unnecessary to discuss either of the other two points made by the defendant.

Each of the judgments is affirmed.

Koford, P.J., and Nourse, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Williams v. City of Piedmont

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Sep 24, 1929
100 Cal.App. 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
Case details for

Williams v. City of Piedmont

Case Details

Full title:ALICE J. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Sep 24, 1929

Citations

100 Cal.App. 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
281 P. 79

Citing Cases

Reynolds v. Barrett

In that case it was held that Ordinance No. 268 was void on the ground that it created a monopoly. The same…