Legal Opinion
Sea v. Lorden
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 5, 1918No. Civ. No. 2261PublishedCited by 6 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal prosecuted under what is known as the alternative method, a method characterized by Mr. Justice Shaw in Estate of Gamble, 166 Cal. 253, [135 Pac. 970], as. “a pitfall for the unwary.” Sueh it has been and such it continues to be, but the virtue of continually calling the attention of the profession to the repeated depart ures from proper procedure under the method has had little more reward than that which is said to be virtue’s own. These remarks are prompted by the fact that the present case exhibits another instance of a failure to observe the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Erickson v. Stockton & Tuolumne Cty. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Huffaker v. DonnellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Barker Brothers v. JoosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Merchants Collection Agency v. GopcevicCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rogers v. Springfield Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- McIntyre v. HicksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Diamond Match Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1923
- Pacific States Steel Corporation, a Corporation, and American Forge Co., a Corporation, and v. Isaacson Iron Works, a Corporation, AndCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Powers v. Board of Public WorksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.