Case ID: cal-2d_27/html/0891-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT. TRAYNOR, J,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

167 P.2d 189]
    [L. A. No. 18936.
    In Bank.
    Mar. 19, 1946.]
    EILEEN C. HIMES, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents.
    Murphey & Davis and Alex W. Davis for Appellant.
    J. H. O’Connor, County Counsel, A. Curtis Smith, Deputy County Counsel, and Clyde Woodworth, City Attorney (South Gate), for Respondents.
   THE COURT.

This case presents for determination the same questions which were decided in Siwel Co. v. County of Los Angeles (ante, p. 724 [167 P.2d 177]). It is conceded by counsel that the issues of fact and law in the two cases are identical, and that the Siwel decision will control the disposition of this appeal.

The judgment herein is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer to appellant's complaint and to proceed in accordance with the views stated in Siwel Co. v. County of Los Angeles.

TRAYNOR, J,

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Siwel Co. v. County of Los Angeles, ante, p. 735.

Gibson, C. J., concurred.