Fritz v. Mills
California Supreme Court
APPEALS by plaintiff from a judgment of tbe Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from certain portions of an order granting a new trial, and by defendants from such order granting a new trial. Frank J. Murasky, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles Wesley Reed, Chas. J. Heggerty, and Knight & Heggerty, for Plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This action was begun on October 31, 1906, Charles W. Reed being the plaintiff. Afterwards, Mary A. Fritz succeeded to his rights and interest and was duly substituted as plaintiff. Judgment was then given for the plaintiff, the defendants appealed therefrom, the appeal was duly transferred to the district court of appeal for the first district and on December 3, 1909, the judgment was reversed. (Fritz v. Mills, 12 Cal. App. 113, [106 Pac. 725].)
After the cause was remanded to the superior court for a new trial the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint and also a supplemental complaint.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kauffman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Breckinridge v. CrockerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Bresee v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Moore v. Clear Lake Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Fogg v. Perris Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Wolfsen v. HathawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Ellis v. KlaffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Ferguson v. KochCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Estate of SchererCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Trout v. OgilvieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.