Legal Opinion

Barnett v. Marsili

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 16, 1932No. Docket No. 781PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

This is an application to correct an alleged error in the reporter’s transcript involving only one question and answer, which now read as follows:

“Q. By the terms of the loan transaction was it stipulated that you was to have possession of the car? A. No, sir.”

It is sought to correct this to read as follows:

11Q. By the terms of the loan transaction was it stipulated that you was to have possession of the car upon demand? A. Yes, sir.”

In support of the motion, there was filed the affidavit of the official court reporter to the effect that he took down the testimony of the witnesses at the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McMahon v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Dugan v. ForsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Webster v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Birkhofer v. KrummCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Morgan v. NeffAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API