MARGOLIS v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO (1957)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Harry MARGOLIS, Ann Margolis, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Honorable Louis B. Dematteis, Judge thereof, and United States Hoffman Machinery Corporation, a corporation, Respondents.

Civ. 17620.

Decided: June 27, 1957

Dreyfus & McTernan, San Francisco, for petitioners. Currie, Lebsack & Hannig, Redwood City, for respondents.

In their application for a rehearing petitioners state that the cross-complaint first filed by them in the action which went to judgment was striken by order of the court. That does not serve adequately to augment the record before us. Even if it did amount to such an augmentation it would not affect other grounds mentioned in the opinion (151 Cal.App.2d 333, 311 P.2d 167), which led to the conclusion that petitioners failed to meet the burden imposed upon them of showing that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the postponement of which petitioners complain. That was all that we decided. We did not and do not intend to foreclose determination by the trial court of any such issues as res judicata, estoppel or collateral estoppel if and when such questions are presented upon resumption of the trial which has been temporarily postponed.

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Out of date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