Corporations
CHARLES R. PARKINSON COMPANY (a Corporation), Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. FRED H. FIGEL, Defendant and Respondent, HENRY COWELL LIME & CEMENT COMPANY (a Corporation), Defendant, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, WILL M. BEGGS, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent
24 Cal. App. 805·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1914·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 1215.
Third Appellate District.
June 4, 1914.]
CHARLES R. PARKINSON COMPANY (a Corporation), Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. FRED H. FIGEL, Defendant and Respondent, HENRY COWELL LIME & CEMENT COMPANY (a Corporation), Defendant, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, WILL M. BEGGS, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent.
JTKAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT—INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH. Judgment affirmed on authority of Parkinson Brothers Company v. Figel, ante, p. 701.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. John E. Richards, Judge.
The facts are similar to those stated in Parkinson Bros. Co. v. Figel, ante, p. 701.
Mastiek & Partridge, for Appellant.
Rogers, Bloomingdale & Free, and R. C. McComish, for Respondents.
[MAJORITY — CHIPMAN, P. J.]
CHIPMAN, P. J.
By stipulation, this case was to be heard and decided on the same transcript as in the case of Parkinson Bros. Co., against the same parties, No. 1214, this day decided, ante, p. 701 [142 Pac. 135], Upon the authority of the judgment in that case, the judgment in this case is affirmed.
Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.