Contracts · MBE-tested
E. O. REESE, Respondent, v. C. B. TURPIN et al., Appellants
61 Cal. App. 797·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1923·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. 4261.
First Appellate District, Division One.
February 16, 1923.]
E. O. REESE, Respondent, v. C. B. TURPIN et al., Appellants.
Contract—Purchasing and Marketing of Fruit—Construction —-Limited Partnership.—Judgment affirmed on the authority of Beelcer v. Turpin, ante, p. 16.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. D. A. Cashin, Judge. Affirmed.
The facts are identical with those stated in the opinion in Becker v. Turpin, ante, p. 16.
Harris & Hayhurst, L. B. Hayhurst and Rue C. Gibson for Appellants.
Carl E'. Lindsay and Edward F. Peters for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
This appeal, being identical as to its facts with the ease of Becker v. Turpin, ante, p. 16 [214 Pae. 255], upon the authority of such decision the judgment is affirmed.