White v. Spreckels
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Louis S. Beedy, P. F. Dunne, and Thomas, Gerstle, Frick & Beedy, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, P. J.
In November, 1908, we filed an opinion in this case, in which we affirmed the judgment as to defend ant Claus Spreckels, and reversed it as to defendant John D. Spreckels. Upon a petition for a rehearing being filed, we were doubtful of the correctness of our former decision as to John D. Spreckels, and the case has been reargued and additional briefs filed. After a careful consideration of all the authorities cited, we have reached the conclusion that our former opinion proceeded upon a theory which omitted an important element in the case, and was therefore erroneous.
The action was brought…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Searles v. . Manhattan Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- McGrath v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Warner v. St. Louis & Meramec River RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Ryan v. Fall River Iron Works Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Strasburger v. VogelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Hinds v. WheadonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Lejeune v. General Petroleum Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1932
- Hilson v. Pacific & Gas Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
- Van Horn v. Pacific Refining & Roofing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
- Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.