Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mabel P. BARTLETT, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. SUBURBAN ESTATES, Inc. (a Corporation), Bayly Brothers, Inc. (a Corporation), Harold Bayly, Roy D. Bayly, Edwards & Wildey Company (a Corporation), and Walter C. Durst, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Edwards & Wildey Company, Bankrupt; and California Trust Company (a Corporation), Defendants, Respondents and Appellants; California Bank (a Corporation), Defendant.†
J. L. HICKSON and Hannah A. Hickson, Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents, v. SUBURBAN ESTATES, Inc., et al., Defendants, Respondents and Appellants.
B. A. FINCH, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. SAME.
Reese LLEWELLYN, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. SAME.
Lida WEBBER, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. SAME.
J. H. WATT, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. SAME.
George W. PIERSON and Gertrude Wilson, Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents, v. SAME.
James SHALDA and Mary Shalda, Plaintiffs, Appellants and Respondents, v. SAME.
O. G. BATES, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, v. SAME.
The opinion in the case of Mary Pickford Company v. Bayly Brothers, Inc., 68 P.(2d) 239, this day filed by us, contains our reasons for the judgments we are entering in the above–entitled cases. These and the Mary Pickford Company Case were all tried together and were presented to us on one reporter's transcript. There is no difference, affecting the result, between the findings of fact in the case already disposed of and the findings in these cases. Judgments were rendered against the same defendants in these cases as in the other, and each appealed. The defendants Harold and Roy D. Bayly also appealed from the order in each case denying their motions to vacate the judgment and enter one favorable to them. No such motion was made by the respective plaintiffs, who have appealed from the judgment in that it denies them all the interest they sought.
The judgment in each case, above entitled, in so far as it affects the California Trust Company is reversed; otherwise it is affirmed. The order appealed from in each case is affirmed.
BISHOP, Justice pro tem.
We concur: HOUSER, P. J.; DORAN, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 11139–11147.
Decided: April 30, 1937
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)