Johnson v. Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Corbet & Goodwin, and Lawrence T. Wagner, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This is an appeal by the defendant Phenix Insurance Company from an order denying its motion for a new trial.' An appeal by the same defendant from the judgment has heretofore been dismissed for the reason that notice of appeal, although served on the plaintiff, -was not served on the co-defendant, Bank of San Mateo County. (Johnson v. Phenix Insurance Co., 146 Cal. 571, [80 Pac. 719].) In so dismissing the appeal, the court necessarily determined that the Bank of San Mateo County was “an adverse’party” within the meaning of section 940 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The motion for new trial…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ryer v. RyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Herriman v. MenziesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Johnson v. Phenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Johnson v. VisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Reynolds v. Dexter Horton & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Estate of GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Bell v. San Francisco Savings UnionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Burke v. DillinghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Curtis v. San Pedro Transportation Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Yeoman v. SherryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.