Banning v. Marleau
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
This is an action to recover certain personal property, or its value. Judgment went for defendant, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.
The court found that “the plaintiff is now in possession of said above-described property”; and the entire judgment is that “ the defendant, W. H. Marleau, do have and recover of and from Mary H. Banning, the plaintiff herein, the following personal property, viz: (describing it) and that said property be returned by plaintiff to defendant, or the value thereof, being the sum of six hundred dollars, in case a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pico v. PicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Sexey v. AdkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Morgan v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Herrick v. HodgesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Hogan v. CowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by13 opinions
- Thoroman v. DavidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Carvell v. WeaverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Banning v. MarleauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Skaggs v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Lee v. De La MotteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.