Legal Opinion
Lamus v. Engwicht
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 30, 1919No. Civ. No. 1895PublishedCited by 4 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
George Engwicht, plaintiff’s minor, was adjudged to be the owner of forty-three shares of the capital stock of the State Bank of Dunsmuir and was awarded the possession thereof.
Separate notices of appeal from the judgment were filed by the executors and by the bank, but, as both appeals are presented upon the same transcript and practically the same points for reversal of the judgment are urged by all the appellants, we will consider the appeals together.
As the names of the plaintiff’s minor and the deceased whose estate he is suing are the same, we will herein refer to these parties as the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bell v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Ashton v. HeydenfeldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Gagossian v. ArakelianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Ellen Mae DixCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Hale v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Hill v. WalshCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- United States v. Ellen Mae DixCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974