MONTGOMERY v. Arthur B. Sirl, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant. (1961)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Grover B. MONTGOMERY and Eleanor H. Montgomery, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Carl SULLIVAN et al., Defendants, Arthur B. Sirl, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant.

Civ. 9984.

Decided: March 24, 1961

Wallace, Garrison, Norton & Ray, San Francisco, for appellant. Hitchcock & Coulter, Santa Rosa, for respondents.

This case involves the same issues as the case of Puckett v. Sullivan, Cal.App., 12 P.2d 55. Although the two cases were tried separately and decided by different judges, the only factual difference of any significance is that the Montgomery property is farther removed from the area of the cut than the Puckett property. Both appellant and respondents agree that this court's decision in the Puckett case will control the decision in the instant case.

For the reasons set forth in Puckett v. Sullivan, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

SCHOTTKY, Justice.

VAN DYKE, P. J., and PEEK, J., concur.

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Out of date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