Case Name: J. A. COBBS et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL COUNTIES GAS COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent; S. C. INGRAM, Appellant, v. CENTRAL COUNTIES GAS COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1929-01-07
Citations: 96 Cal. App. 782
Docket Number: Civ. No. 3668; Civ. No. 3669
Parties: J. A. COBBS et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL COUNTIES GAS COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. S. C. INGRAM, Appellant, v. CENTRAL COUNTIES GAS COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 782–783

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 3668.
Third Appellate District.
January 7, 1929.]
J. A. COBBS et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL COUNTIES GAS COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent. S. C. INGRAM, Appellant, v. CENTRAL COUNTIES GAS COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent.
[Civ. No. 3669.
Third Appellate District.
January 7, 1929.]
E. J. Emmons and G. L. Aynesworth for Appellants.
O'Melveny, Millikin & Tuller, Power & McFadzean, John A. Powell, Pierce Works, O'Melveny, Tuller & Myers, and Louis W. Myers, for Respondent.

Opinion:
JAMISON, J., pro tem.
By stipulation of the parties the above two cases, upon the evidence produced and instructions given in the eases of Geneva Carroll, etc., v. Central Counties Gas Co. and R. P. Carroll v. Central Counties Gas Co., ante, p. 161 [273 Pac. 875], were submitted to the same jury that tried said last-named cases. The jury returned verdicts in favor of respondents. Appellants filed motions for new trials, which were denied, and judgments were rendered in favor of respondent. Prom the orders denying their motions for new trials, and from said judgments, defendants have appealed.
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of this court in the aforesaid cases, orders denying motions for new trials and the judgments in these two eases are reversed.
Hart, Acting P. J., and Plummer, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of these causes was denied by the district court of appeal on February 6, 1929, and an opinion was rendered thereon, ante, p. 168 [274 Pac. 594]; and a petition by respondent to have these causes heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on March 7, 1929.
Shenk, J., Preston, J., and Waste, C. J., dissented.