Legal Opinion

California Canning Peach Growers v. Bardell & Oregoni

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 20, 1933No. Docket No. 4493PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

As filed in the trial court the complaint in this action named the defendants as follows: “Bardell & Oregoni, V. Bardell, John Doe Oregoni, Richard Roe and Sam Stoe”. While our attention has not been called to the substitution of the name of Maria Oregoni as one of the defendants given a fictitious name in the title, it appears from the record that she filed an answer as one of the defendants. The complaint does not allege the existence of any partnership between the defendants, but simply sets forth that the defendants, on a certain date, applied for membership in the plaintiff-association.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. California Canning Peach Growers v. DowneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  2. California Canning Peach Growers v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Bank of Bellbuckle v. MasonTennessee Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Dawson, Blackmore & Co. v. ElrodCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
  5. Monroe v. ConnerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1838

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. California Canning Peach Growers v. HarkeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. DeSantis v. Miller Petroleum Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. California Canning Peach Growers v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API