SANFORD v. GRADY (1934)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

SANFORD et al. v. GRADY et al.

Civ. 5064.

Decided: November 10, 1934

George R. Freeman, of Willows, for appellants Charles S. and Laura C. Grady. Clark & Heafey, of Oakland, Chenoweth & Leininger, of Redding, and James W. Hughes, of Oakland, for appellants Gertrude and Richard Steger. Jesse E. Nichols and Clifton Hildebrand, both of Oakland, for respondents.

Upon petition for rehearing the opinion of this court, in 36 P.(2d) 652, is modified as follows:

At page 653 of 36 P.(2d), line 6 from the bottom, at the end of the line following the word “therein” insert: “although he had not traveled that road for four years he claimed that he did not remember the exact location of the depression. He said in that regard: ‘I did not know it was so close.”’

At page 654 of 36 P.(2d), line 4 from the bottom, strike out the words “of the presence” and insert in lieu thereof the following: “that he was in the vicinity.”

With these modifications the petition for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.

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Out of date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