FRAENKEL v. TRESCONY (1952)

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

Carl M. FRAENKEL, doing business as The Matthis Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. J. G. TRESCONY and Marie G. Trescony, Defendants and Respondents.
Carl M. FRAENKEL, doing business as The Matthis Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lucio ECHENIQUE, Patricia Echenique, Ricardo Echenique, Francis D. Echenique and Luis Echenique, individually and doing business as Echenique Co., Defendants and Respondents.
Carl M. FRAENKEL, doing business as The Matthis Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ANSBERRY CO., a corporation, and Adrian Ansberry, Defendants and Respondents. *

Civ. Nos. 14962–14964.

Decided: October 10, 1952

Jack Flinn, San Francisco, Carroll F. Jacoby, San Francisco, for appellant. John W. Hutton, King City, for respondents.

The facts and issues in these proceedings are similar to those involved in the case of Fraenkel v. Williamson, Cal.App., 248 P.2d 531. For the reasons therein stated the judgment in each of the three above-entitled causes is reversed and the cause remanded with the direction to the Superior Court to enter an order permitting the plaintiff to amend his complaint within a reasonable time to be fixed by said Court.

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Out of date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