Broadway Improvement & Investment Co. v. Tumansky
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed from portions of the judgment rendered in this action, the plaintiff being dissatisfied with that portion of the judgment which declared that the defendants were entitled to the immediate possession of 75 Pittsburg automatic gas steam radiators installed in an apartment house in Los Angeles, and the defendants contending that the portion of the judgment which enjoins them from removing a complete elevator system, a complete Frigidaire refrigeration system and 56 wall beds is erroneous. The defendants and appellants have abandoned their claims to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dauch v. GinsburgCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Hammel Radiator Corp. v. Mortgage Guarantee Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
3Cited by12 opinions
- Knell v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Southern California Telephone Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Consolidated Motor Freight Terminal v. VineyardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
- Bell v. Bank of PerrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd. v. Unosuke HigashiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.