Case Name: THE PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. RICHFIELD OIL COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1928-05-31
Citations: 204 Cal. 699
Docket Number: L. A. No. 8980
Parties: THE PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. RICHFIELD OIL COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 699–701

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 8980.
In Bank.
May 31, 1928.]
THE PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. RICHFIELD OIL COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
Page, Nolan, Rohe & Freston, Page, Nolan, Rohe & Hurt, Ralph E. Lewis, Rohe & Freston and Arthur F. Coe for Appellant.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John L. Flynn and Frank L. Guerena, Deputies Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PRESTON, J.
Upon the authority of People v. Ventura Refining Co., ante, p. 286 [268 Pac. 347], and People v. Richfield Oil Co., ante, p. 301 [268 Pac. 353], the judgment in this cause must be affirmed.
The contracts here are identical with the contracts con-sidered in the case last above cited. The only reason for separate appeals in the two cases was that in one of them the question arose as to when the appellant should have claimed the exemption, but in view of our conclusions announced in these cases, this question becomes immaterial.
Judgment affirmed.
Richards, J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.