Corporations

G. L. TILDEN AND COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; WALKUP DRAYAGE AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; MERCHANTS EXPRESS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; HAGSTROM'S FOOD STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; HASLETT WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; MANNINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; J. A. CLARK DRAYING COMPANY, LTD., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; HIGHWAY TRANSPORT INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; ROBERTSON DRAYAGE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; FOSTERS LUNCH SYSTEM, LTD., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; UNION ICE AND STORAGE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE UNION ICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; PENINSULA ICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent

112 Cal. App. 2d 893246 P.2d 697·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1952·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

246 P.2d 697] [Civ. No. 15288. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] G. L. TILDEN AND COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; WALKUP DRAYAGE AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; MERCHANTS EXPRESS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; HAGSTROM’S FOOD STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; HASLETT WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; MANNINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; J. A. CLARK DRAYING COMPANY, LTD., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; HIGHWAY TRANSPORT INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; ROBERTSON DRAYAGE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; FOSTERS LUNCH SYSTEM, LTD., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; UNION ICE AND STORAGE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE UNION ICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; PENINSULA ICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent. [Civ. No. 15289. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15290. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15291. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15292. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15293. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15294. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15295. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15296. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15297. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15298. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15299. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] [Civ. No. 15300. First Dist., Div. Two. July 21, 1952.] Fabian D. Brown for Petitioners. Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Irving H. Perluss and William L. Shaw, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent. [MAJORITY — THE COURT.] THE COURT. The facts and issues in these proceedings are similar to those involved in John Breuner Co. v. Superior Court, Civ. No. 15287, ante, p. 304 [246 P.2d 694] this day decided. For the reasons therein stated the orders are affirmed. Petitioners’ application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 18, 1952. Schauer, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Opinion