Case Name: A. W. CURLEY, Appellant, v. LUCY V. RICHARDS, etc., Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1924-11-07
Citations: 69 Cal. App. 798
Docket Number: Civ. No. 2784
Parties: A. W. CURLEY, Appellant, v. LUCY V. RICHARDS, etc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 798–798

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 2784.
Third Appellate District.
November 7, 1924.]
A. W. CURLEY, Appellant, v. LUCY V. RICHARDS, etc., Respondent.
Ware & Ware for Appellant.
Edward T. Bishop, County Counsel, J. H. O’Connor, Assistant County Counsel,' and Roy W. Dowds, Deputy County Counsel, Amici Curiae in support of Appellant’s position.
Wm. E. Rothe, District Attorney, and C. W. Johnson, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
The questions involved in this case are the
same as those considered in Nielsen v. Richards, ante, p. 533 [232 Pac. 480]. On the authority of that ease the judgments herein are reversed, with directions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer to the petition.
A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on January 5, 1925.