Legal Opinion

Bainbridge v. Stoner

California Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1940No. Sac. 5243Published

1Opinion of the Court

16 Cal.2d 423 (1940)

MINNIE M. BAINBRIDGE et al., Appellants,

v.

B. L. STONER et al., Respondents.

Sac. No. 5243.

Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

October 23, 1940.

Samuel J. Jones and W. K. Ephraim in pro. per., for Appellants.

Rowan Hardin for Respondents.

EDMONDS, J.

The question which is presented by the appellants in this case concerns the sufficiency of their complaint to state a cause of action against the respondent B. L. Stoner. The superior court sustained his demurrer without leave to amend and subsequently entered a judgment dismissing the action as to him.

According to the allegations…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. ScarboroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. The Edward Barron Estate Co. v. the Woodruff Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Rutherford v. Rideout BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

26 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