PEARCE v. ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY (1936)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

William J. PEARCE and Hannah E. Pearce (Husband and wife), George G. Sanford and Elizabeth B. Sanford (Husband and Wife), George L. Kellogg and Etta L. Kellogg (Husband and Wife), and Katherine B. Beare, formerly Katherine B. Henley, Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Respondents, v. ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY (a Corporation) Defendant, Respondent, and Appellant. †

Civ. 1616.

Decided: December 23, 1936

Michael F. Shannon, Thomas A. Wood, and Robert H. Dunlap, all of Los Angeles, and Wm. M. Abbott, of San Francisco, for plaintiffs–appellants–respondents. Robert M. Searls and W. F. Kiessig, both of San Francisco, and Harrison Guio, of Los Angeles, for defendant–respondent–appellant.

The various contentions advanced by appellants on their cross–appeals in this action are, in all respects, similar to those advanced in the cross–appeals in Fowler v. Associated Oil Co., this day decided, 63 P. (2d) 1146. For the reasons therein stated it is our conclusion that both the appeal of plaintiffs from that portion of the judgment denying recovery for shortages that existed prior to April 28, 1928, and defendant's appeal from the whole of the judgment should be denied.

The judgment from which the appeals herein have been taken is therefore affirmed.

JENNINGS, Justice.

We concur: BARNARD, P. J.; MARKS, 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Out of date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