Reports of Cases Determined in the District Courts of Appeal of the State of California, Volume 40 (Google eBook)

Front Cover
Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1920 - Law reports, digests, etc
0 Reviews
  

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Contents

Berkshire St Ry Co 217 Mass 361
54
La Grange etc Min Co v Carter 142 Cal 560 304
60
Schuler 25 Oal App 117 666
72
Cummings 75 Cal 434 770
74
Broderick 550
75
Los Angeles v Occidental Oil Co 144 Cal 528 486
78
CaliforniaPortland Cement Co v Wentworth Hotel Co 16
86
Cunningham 60 Cal 530 48
92
Home Telephone and Telegraph Co v City of Los Angeles 492
96
Abner Doble Co v Keystone etc Co 145 Cal 490
99
MeClellan Bar Association of San Francisco v 630
100
Southern Pacific Railroad Co Conlin v 733 743
108
Nelson 41 Cal 278
129
Acme Lumber Co v Wessling 19 Cal App 406 86 94
130
Schiaffino 675
155
Nason Company Kennedy
159
California Sav etc Bank v Canne 34 Cal App 768 49 50 105
162
Hynes Beltran v
177
Dieterle 5 Cal App 690 792
185
Old Colony St Ry Co 184 Mass 156 588
188
Quinn Milekovich y 537
190
Citv of San Diego 101 Cal 390 781
196
Orman 9 Fla 22 536
197
National Bank of San Mateo v Whitney 276
202
Ellis 9 Cal App 145 72
205
Gulf etc Ry Co t Texas Packing Co 244 V S 31 606 612
215
Humboldt County y Dinsmore 75 Cal 604 305
218
Peck 104 Cal 38 357
220
Bunting Damiano 566
228
Bellingham Bay Lumber Co t Western Amusement Co 35
230
Newmark Grain Co Thomas v 491
237
Ramsdell Davies v 424 432
240
Industrial Accident Commission McAdoo v 570
243
California Highway Commission v Industrial Accident Commission 465
246
Fagan 135 Iowa 633 382
253
Noble Greely v 628
260
RansomeCrummey Co v Wood 355
264
Donohue Fergodo v 670
267
Huneke 12 Cal App 203 347
270
Clark 135 Cal 356
283
Rogers 9 Cal 124 185
292
Nawa 25 Cal App 151 705
295
Oakland Brewing Malting Co James Eva Estate v 515
299
Lewis 36 Cal App 687 683
305
James Eva Estate v Mecca Company 515
309
Feather River Water Co 14 Cal 19 558
311
Butler
314
Hardy
323
California Wine Association Clovis Fruit Company v 623
332
Baender 790
351
Jersey Farm Co v Atlanta Realty Co 164 Cal 412 369
353
Wood RansomeCrummey Co v
355
Crafts 53 Cal 135 140 368
368
Grady 194
383
Garratt 69 Cal 146 459
388
Chicago Lumber Co v Douglas 89 Kan 308 92
390
Canal Co 75 Cal 426 129 130
437
Van Ness 176 Cal 585 196 374 601 002
446
Wheeler 14 Pick Mass 408 414
460
Clovis Fruit Company v California Wine Association 623
462
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
469
Gunn 119 Cal 315 477 508
477
Johnson t Wunner
484
Kearney 136 Cal 175 289
486
City of Pasadena v Stimson 91 Cal 251
488
Union Ry Co 18 App Div 267 54
495
Warring 119
498
Kearney Enoz v 290
501
Taney Martinez v
503
Frink 171 Cal 165 73
510
Thorwaldson 62
532
Donlon Bros v Southern Pac Co 151 Cal 763 608
536
Brown 83 Cal 181 768
537
Keil 18 Cal App 675 215
553
Blanehard 10 Cal App 203 555
555
Southern Pacific Railroad Co 733 743
564
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
582
Fairview Land etc Co 165 Cal 166 74
596
Fox 98 Cal 63 133
601
Kansas City S R Co v Carl 227 U S 639
605
Ondanck Southern Pacific Company 38
613
Ramsdell 424 432
617
Commonwealth Amusement Corp 19 Cal App 720 86
621
Giannini Cuneo v 348
628
Waldmann 31 Cal App 245 141
629
San Francisco Bar Association v McClellan
630
Yellow Aster Mining and Milling Co Duran v
633
Occidental Steamship Co 86 Cal 445
636
City of Oroville 22 Cal App 215
637
San Gabriel Valley Bank 7 Cal App 106 239 368
655
Lashells 151 Cal 526 665
665
Swain 125 Cal 674
667
Superior Court of San Diego County Kelsey v 229
685
National Exchange Bk 91 TJ S 618
693
Lauer Sons Henderson v
696
Hills 138 Cal 134 698
698
McCarthy 162 Cal 94 297
711
Gay 146 Cal 237 242 107
714
Thompson 5 Moore P C 165
729
Gray 144 Mass 53 389
731
East San Mateo Land Co v Southern Pacific R R Co 30
735
Greenwood White v 113
737
Brode 371
758
Kashaw3 Cal 312 768 769 770
768
TJniW Railroads of San Francisco Sallee v 51
776
San Luis Obispo County Forrington v 44
778
Pacific Manufacturing Company v Perry 708
782
Stuart 23 Cal App 373 108
786
Scarpa 345
831
H W Pierce Inc v County of Santa Barbara 302
875
Hammel Abrahams v 11
895
Copyright

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 64 - Every mortgage or conveyance intended to operate as a mortgage of goods and chattels which shall hereafter be made which shall not be accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession...
Page 365 - TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, all and singular the above mentioned and described premises, together with the appurtenances unto the said party of the second part and to his heirs and assigns, forever, And the said Robert Schuyler, Russell H.
Page 701 - All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety- and happiness.
Page 43 - Of the parties to the action, those who are united in interest must be joined as plaintiffs or defendants; but if the consent of any one,' who should have been joined as plaintiff, cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant, the reason thereof being stated in the complaint...
Page 636 - J., observed that in order for it to apply "there must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.
Page 606 - The amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier becomes liable shall be computed at the value of the property at the place and time of shipment...
Page 568 - If a person entitled to bring an action die before the expiration of the time limited for the commencement thereof, and the cause of action...
Page 532 - No action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, can be maintained, unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the property in question, within five years before the commencement of the action.
Page 369 - The principle is, that where the owner of two tenements sells one of them, or the owner of an entire estate sells a portion, the purchaser takes the tenement or portion sold with all the benefits and burdens which appear at the time of the sale to belong to it, as between it and the property which the vendor retains.
Page 758 - A * * * directed verdict may be granted 'only when, disregarding conflicting evidence and giving to plaintiff's evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, herein indulging in every legitimate inference which may be drawn from that evidence, the result is a determination that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff if such a verdict were given.

Bibliographic information