Le Duc v. Blumenthal, 11 Cal.2d 780
[L. A. No. 16666. In Bank. July 19, 1938.]
HAZEL LE DUC, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants.
[L. A. No. 16667. In Bank. July 19, 1938.]
JOSEPH G. SAUCEDO et al., Respondents, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants.
[L. A. No. 16668. In Bank. July 19, 1938.]
GEORGE A. ROLLE, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants.
COUNSEL
R. D. McLaughlin, Walter I. Lyon, Walter T. Casey and Albert Lee Casey for Appellants.
Don L. Gilman and Entenza & Gramer for Respondents.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum
THE COURT.
These three cases are companion cases to McNeil v. Blumenthal, L. A. No. 16665 (ante, p. 566 [81 PaCal.2d 567]) this day decided. They are before this court on motion of plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal of defendants from an order of the trial court granting relief pursuant to section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or to affirm the order. [1] The question presented is identical with that determined in the McNeil case. Therefore, on that authority, the respective orders appealed from in these three cases are, and each of them is, hereby affirmed.
Opinion Information
Parties
| 1 | HAZEL LE DUC (Respondent)
|
| 2 | , v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants. (, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al.)
|
| 3 | HAZEL LE DUC (Respondent)
|
| Disposition |
| Jul 19 1938 | Opinion: Affirmed |
