Legal Opinion

Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 1905No. Civ. No. 112PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

Appeal by defendant George Finkbohner from a judgment and order denying motion for a new trial in an action upon a street assessment. The judgment was entered on a stipulation of attorneys assuming to repre sent defendants, including Pinkbohner. The authority of attorneys so to act is disputed by Pinkbohner. His motion tu vacate and set aside the stipulation under which judgment was entered against him was denied. He appeals from the judgment; also from the order denying his motion for a new trial, and the principal question is, Did the court err in refusing to vacate and set aside the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pacific Paving Co. v. VizelichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Pacific Paving Co. v. VizelichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
  3. Daneri v. GazzolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Berry v. ChaplinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Berry v. ChaplinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API