History
  • No items yet
midpage
F.L. Feisthamel v. W.S. Kingsbury
1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1261
| Cal. Ct. App. | 1931
|
Check Treatment

[1] The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of Carr v. Kinsbury, (Civ. No. 186) ante, p. 165 [295 P. 586], except the description of the property *Page 763 upon which appellant has made his location. The decision in the Carr case has this day been filed. The questions of law involved in the instant case are identical with those in the Carr case, therefore, for the reasons given in the case of Carr v.Kingsbury, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Barnard, P.J., and Warmer, J., pro tem, concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 11, 1931, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on March 16, 1931.

Case Details

Case Name: F.L. Feisthamel v. W.S. Kingsbury
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Jan 16, 1931
Citation: 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1261
Docket Number: Docket No. 188.
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.