General
GEORGE E. FRIOUX, Petitioner, v. FRED H. JOHNSON, as Auditor of San Joaquin County, Respondent
100 Cal. App. 797·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1929·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. 3795.
Third Appellate District.
July 16, 1929.]
GEORGE E. FRIOUX, Petitioner, v. FRED H. JOHNSON, as Auditor of San Joaquin County, Respondent.
Nutter, Hancock & Rutherford and A. P. Hayne for Petitioner.
Guard C. Darrah, District Attorney, and Tom H. Louttit, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
Upon the authority of the case of In re Lovall, on Habeas Corpus, 207 Cal. 544 [279 Pac. 452], recently decided by the Supreme Court, distinguishing the questions involved in the above-entitled case from that of Robertson v. Langford, 95 Cal. App. 414 [273 Pac. 150], it is hereby ordered that the writ prayed for be and the same is hereby granted.