WEEKS v. SOTHMAN (1934)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Harry J. WEEKS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George C. SOTHMAN, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 8926.

Decided: March 12, 1934

W. C. Dalzell, of Los Angeles, for appellant. McAdoo & Neblett and B. H. Neblett, all of Los Angeles, for respondent.

This appeal is from an order vacating and setting aside a sale under execution of 3,933 shares of stock of the Airway Laundry, Limited, a corporation, property of the judgment debtor. The order appealed from was made after hearing upon an order to show cause why the sale in question should not be vacated.

Inasmuch as the material facts here involved, as well as the legal questions raised, are similar to those considered and decided in the case of Haish v. Hall, 90 Cal. App. 547, 265 P. 1030, in which case a hearing was denied by the Supreme Court, it would seem to serve no useful purpose in this case to reiterate the views and conclusions there expressed upon the same questions.

In the interests of economy of time and space we feel that reference to the opinion in that case will meet the needs of our decision in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

HAHN, Justice pro tem.

We concur: STEPHENS, P. J.; CRAIG, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network