Case Name: ALICE J. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant; H. S. HARRIS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant; FRANCIS E. REYNOLDS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1929-09-24
Citations: 100 Cal. App. 802
Docket Number: Civ. No. 6848
Parties: ALICE J. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant. H. S. HARRIS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant. FRANCIS E. REYNOLDS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 6848.
First Appellate District, Division. Two.
September 24, 1929.]
ALICE J. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant. H. S. HARRIS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant. FRANCIS E. REYNOLDS, Respondent, v. CITY OF PIEDMONT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant.
Girard N. Richardson for Appellant.
Breed, Burpee & Robinson for Respondents.

Opinion:
STURTEVANT, J.
From each of three declaratory judgments the defendant has áppealed. In each case the point is made that the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of Ordinance No. 268 of the City of Piedmont. On the authority of Andrews v. City of Piedmont (No. 6624), ante, p. 700 [281 Pac. 78], this day filed, the point may not be sustained. In the view we take of the record it is unnecessary to discuss either of the other two points made by the defendant.
Each of the judgments is affirmed.
Koford, P. J., and Nourse, J., concurred.