HINDMAN v. OWL DRUG CO CORK (1934)

Supreme Court of California.

HINDMAN v. OWL DRUG CO. et al. (CORK et al., Interveners).

L. A. 14545.

Decided: June 26, 1934

Keyes & Erskine, of San Francisco, and John C. Mead, of Los Angeles, for appellant. Christopher M. Bradley, of San Francisco, and E. Eugene Davis, of Los Angeles, for plaintiff respondent. Chickering & Gregory, of San Francisco, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Norman S. Sterry, all of Los Angeles, for defendants respondents.

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal of the intervener Florence Brown upon the grounds, first, that she no longer has any interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, and, as to her, the questions involved in the appeal have become moot, and on the further (second) ground that she has failed to perfect the appeal within the time required by law.

Both grounds of the motion are good. The first has been considered and held to be a sufficient reason for dismissing the appeal in the opinion and decision this day rendered in Hindman v. Owl Drug Company (Cal.Supp.) 33 P.(2d) 1023.

It appears from the certificate of the clerk of the court in which the action was prosecuted that notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the intervener Florence Brown was filed November 7, 1932. As to her, no further proceedings appear of record in the action.

The appeal is dismissed.

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Out of date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!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law