City of Napa v. Maxwell
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
An opinion, prepared by Justice Burnett, was filed in this action on November 20, 1917. While in the original opinion the merits of the controversy were considered and discussed, the appeal was dismissed because this court had no jurisdiction thereof.
A rehearing was granted on the petition of the appellant for the purpose of giving further consideration to the position taken by this court that the attempt by the plaintiff to take an appeal was abortive, and also to consider whether, as the plaintiff contends in its petition, the complaint states a cause of action and is, therefore, good as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wood, Curtis Co. v. Missouri Etc. Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Warren v. ChandosCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Litch v. KernsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- United Real Estate & Tr. Co. v. BarnesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Hadsall v. CaseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Petaluma v. HughesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918