Case Name: CHARLES RULAND, Respondent, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1912-06-15
Citations: 19 Cal. App. 275
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1023
Parties: CHARLES RULAND, Respondent, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1023.
First Appellate District.
June 15, 1912.]
CHARLES RULAND, Respondent, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant.
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 Bagley v. Bloom, ante, p. 255.
John Hubert Mee, for Appellant.
McNair & Stokes, for Respondent.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
This case also involves the same questions as those decided in Bagley v. Bloom et al., ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion therein filed, 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.