Legal Opinion
Martyn v. Leslie
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 17, 1955No. Civ. 20786, 20787PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NOURSE (Paul), J. pro tem. *
The above entitled actions were consolidated for trial. The action in which Leslie and Hungate are the only defendants will be hereinafter designated the second action. The lower court did not follow the rule laid down in Wolfson v. Beatty, 118 Cal.App.2d 392, at 398 [257 P.2d 1017], but made findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgments in each case. The record here, therefore, consists of one reporter’s transcript and two clerk’s transcripts.
The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment in favor of the defendants in each action. What we will hereafter say will…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Milana v. Credit Discount Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Terry Trading Corp. v. BarskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Salvin v. . Myles Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Stock v. MeekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Janisse v. Winston Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Stodd v. GoldbergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Stilwell v. TrutanichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Pilch v. MilikinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Buck v. DahlgrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.