METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. ADAMS

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

The METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. E. Bennett ADAMS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

The METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Lawrence HOLMES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 2172

Decided: March 15, 1940

James H. Howard, Arthur A. Weber, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., Donald M. Keith, Hill, Morgan & Bledsoe, and Vincent Morgan, all of Los Angeles, for appellant. Miguel Estudillo, of Riverside, Oliver O. Clark, of Los Angeles, and C.L. McFarland, of Riverside, for respondents.

The respondents urge, in their petition for rehearing, that the interest question “was not properly decided in the other case (Metropolitan Water District v. Adams, Civil No. 2434, as reported in Cal.App., 99 P.2d 675) for the reasons that in that case no transcript was prepared or filed, no briefs were prepared or filed, and a stipulation of the parties was filed in which it was provided that the decision of the interest question in that case should abide the decision of that question in this case.” Respondents are in error as to these facts. A transcript is filed in the other case (Civil No. 2434) together with a stipulation that the question of interest “raised by this appeal may be determined upon the briefs filed in, and to be filed in, said cause 99 P.2d 659 and upon the oral arguments, if any in that cause.”

The petition for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.

Copied to clipboard