PEOPLE v. HENDRICKSON (1937)

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

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Paul HENDRICKSON, Doing Business under the Fictitious Firm Name of Jinricky Company, Ltd., Defendant and Respondent.
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOME BRAND BOTTLING COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JINRICKY COMPANY, Inc., Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 11391, 11392, 11393.

Decided: May 07, 1937

U. S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and Seibert L. Sefton, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the People. Erwin P. Werner and Edward Linder, both of Los Angeles, for respondents.

These three cases are similar in the pleadings, except as to names and amounts, and in the judgments rendered, to the case of People v. Tux Winery Company, 67 P.(2d) 752, this day decided by this court. The appeals were taken five weeks later. The parties have now stipulated in writing that these cases may be submitted for decision on the briefs on file in the Tux Winery Company Case.

For the reasons stated in the decision in that case, we also affirm the judgments in these cases.

Judgments affirmed.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

We concur: WOOD, J.; McCOMB, 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Out of date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