Christenson Lumber Co. v. Seawell
California Supreme Court
PETITION for Writ of Mandate directed to James M. Séawell, Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Petition for writ of mandate. The petitioner was allowed to intervene in an action between other parties. Subsequently demurrers of the defendants in the action" to the third amended complaint of the plaintiffs, and to the complaint in intervention, were sustained and the action, including the intervention, dismissed. Separate appeals from ithe judgment were taken by the defendants and the petitioner, .following the procedure prescribed by sections 953a, 953b, .•and 953c of'the Code of Civil Procedure, and they have presented to the defendant a transcript on appeal with a request…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lake v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Totten v. BarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Pierce v. WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Knoch v. HaizlipCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Thompson v. American Fruit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.