Legal Opinion
Austin v. Harry E. Jones, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 13, 1939No. Civ. No. 10924PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against several persons asking for an accounting. She named certain fictitious individuals as defendants but she did not serve anyone claimed to be the fictitious defendant. She also named Harry E. Jones, Inc., a corporation, as one of the defendants. Before the trial the action was dismissed as to that corporation. The other two defendants, C. E. Boag and Loren D. Curtis, answered. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed.
In form the action is one for an accounting. The…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- People v. OttoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Southern Pac. R.R. v. DufourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Auerbach v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hicks v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Jefferson v. J. E. French Co.California Supreme Court · 1960
- Johndrow v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Estate of SchererCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Williamson v. ClapperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.