Legal Opinion

Ward v. McKinsey

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 3, 1929No. Docket No. 6699Published

1Opinion of the Court

LANDIS, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the superior court dissolving a temporary restraining order.

Briefly stated, it is averred in the amended complaint “that defendant, Ed. McKinsey, as plaintiff in an action No. 104,448 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, was given judgment herein and one H. E. Putnam for the sum of $645.34 on December 1, 1922”; that “said H. E. Putnam as plaintiff in another action in said court, action No. 103,337, was given judgment against said Ed. McKinsey for the sum of $1200 on March 15, 1923; that it was agreed between all the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Myers v. CanepaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  2. Throop v. WeaverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Kovacevich v. Fischer Motor Body Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Woods v. DiepenbrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Wolf v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1907

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API