Herzog v. Hemphill
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. "Win. R. Daingerfield, and James A. Ballentine, for Appellant. Garber, Creswell & Garber, and Morrison & Cope, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtKerrigan, J.
This is an action for damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been caused by the defendants’ negligence. The appeal is from the judgment entered in favor of the defendants upon the sustaining of their demurrer to the complaint, the plaintiff having declined to amend it.
The complaint in substance alleges that the defendants were in possession of certain premises in San Francisco, and had the sole management and control thereof, including a tamale-stand, at which stand tamales were sold to the public. That Alfred N. Herzog, the deceased, entered the premises June 6, 1901,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
- Means v. Southern California Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Phillips v. Library Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
- Schmidt v. BauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Redigan v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Popejoy v. HannonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Neel v. Mannings, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1942
- Demmer v. City of EurekaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Faylor v. Great Eastern Quicksilver Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Polk v. Laurel Hill Cemetery Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1918
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.