Swim v. Juhl
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.
Plaintiff sued on an assigned claim for medical services alleged to have been rendered the defendant Dorothy E. Bradley. The defendants Ethel Baye Juhl and her husband, Jesse Peter Juhl, were joined on the theory that the former, who was the mother of Dorothy Bradley, promised to pay for the services rendered her daughter. The Juhls answered and went to trial before the court sitting without a jury. At the close of plaintiff’s case the court, on motion of these two defendants, granted a non-suit. The appeal is taken from this order and is presented on a transcript prepared under section 953a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Auzerais v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Bennett v. PotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Converse v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Stimson Mill Co. v. Hughes Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
- Dawson Terminal Co. v. Rosenberg Iron & Metal Co.California Court of Appeal · 1923
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wine Packing Corp. of Cal. v. VossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Crofts & Anderson v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Anglin v. ConwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Hemenover v. LynipCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Tringali v. VestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.