Case Name: MARY GREER CONKLIN, Appellant, v. HARVEY R. LING et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1932-07-22
Citations: 125 Cal. App. 44
Docket Number: Civ. No. 7455
Parties: MARY GREER CONKLIN, Appellant, v. HARVEY R. LING et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 44–55

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 7455.
Second Appellate District, Division One.
July 22, 1932.]
MARY GREER CONKLIN, Appellant, v. HARVEY R. LING et al., Respondents.
Mary Greer Conklin, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Ralph W. Swagler for Respondents.

Opinion:
CONREY, P. J.
The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Houser. We are all in agreement that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint. We of the majority, however, think that the alleged publication of which plaintiff complained was neither libelous on its face nor capable of being given a libelous quality by means of any amendment to the complaint. We therefore are of the opinion that the court very properly dismissed the action without first giving plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.
There being no argument presented in support of the appeal from order denying motion to strike cost bill, that appeal is deemed to be without merit.
The judgment is affirmed. The order is affirmed.
York, J., concurred.