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.
Fred G. SCRAFIELD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACKARD–BELL COMPANY, a corporation, and David Fenwick, an individual doing business as David Fenwick–Advertising, Defendants and Respondents.
It has been stipulated that the decision in Marshall v. Packard–Bell, Cal.App., 236 P.2d 201, shall be controlling in the above entitled case. Since we have this day filed a decision affirming the judgment in Marshall v. Packard–Bell, supra, it is ordered that the judgment in the instant case be affirmed.
McCOMB, Justice.
MOORE, P.J., concurs.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: Civ. 18414.
Decided: October 15, 1951
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, 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)