Legal Opinion

Bossen v. Bean

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 24, 1923No. Civ. No. 2618PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The appeal is from the judgment and purports to be upon the judgment-roll, but the judgment-roll is not complete since it does not contain the second amended answer, ■ one of the pleadings upon which the parties went to trial. Indeed, said answer does not appear in the transcript at all and there has been no suggestion of diminution of the record. The action was brought to recover the possession of a certain number of cattle or their value in case delivery could not be had. The original answer and the first amended answer are printed in the transcript, from which it appears that defendant…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bray v. LoweryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Colton Land & Water Co. v. SwartzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Ganceart v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Brittan v. Oakland Bank of SavingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Hart v. PlumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hauret v. PedelabordeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  2. Sievers V.Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API