Legal Opinion

Stahl v. Fahrman

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 28, 1954No. Civ. No. 20113PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhite, P. J.

The facts, upon which this appeal must be decided, are quite different from those discussed in the briefs of appellant and respondent, because of the inadequate record on appeal, from which has been omitted the pleadings, evidence, oral proceedings upon motions, and even the judgment.

The clerk’s transcript discloses a “Stipulation for Judgment” executed by the attorneys for appellant and respondent under date of December 22, 1952, and filed December 31, 1952, that “the amount justly due and unpaid unto the plaintiff on the note and deed of trust sued upon in this action is $13,150 principal,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Elms v. ElmsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Hughes v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Hood v. Verdugo Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Pawling v. MalleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Clark v. City of ComptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  2. Hummel v. HummelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API