Case Name: MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant, v. FRANK J. DEVLIN, Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1912-06-15
Citations: 19 Cal. App. 274
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1043
Parties: MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant, v. FRANK J. DEVLIN, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1043.
First Appellate District.
June 15, 1912.]
MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant, v. FRANK J. DEVLIN, Respondent.
Judgment affirmed on the authority of Bagley v. Bloom, ante, p. 255.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco: J. M. Seawell, Judge. •
The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion of the court in jBagley v. Bloom, ante, p. 255.
John Hubert Mee, for Appellant.
Robert T. Devlin, and George Clark, for Respondent.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
Respondent relies upon adverse possession, in addition to the defenses presented in the case of Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], but it is unnecessary to give the question specific attention. For the reasons stated in the opinion filed this day in Bagley v. Bloom et al., supra, the judgment is affirmed.
Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 14, 1912.