Legal Opinion
Kline v. Mohr
California Supreme Court
Decided April 2, 1904No. S.F. No. 3594PublishedCited by 2 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. Further facts are stated in the case of Mohr v. Byrne, 132 Cal. 251, 252, and 135 Cal. 88-90.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
The following statement is taken from appellant’s brief as giving substantially about all of the conceded facts which are essential to a comprehension of the controversy:—
“This is an appeal in an interpleader suit from a judgment on the pleadings, and the sole question involved is whether certain findings made by the court, in an action referred to as No. 57,169 in respondent’s answer and cross-complaint, is a bar to appellant’s case. The appellant herein attempted to reach this point by a motion to strike out the facts constituting the plea of res adjudicata, which was denied by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thrift v. DelaneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Mohr v. ByrneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by2 opinions
- Holbrook v. TelesioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Steinberg v. GoldsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956