Case Name: C. J. PROUD, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; THE PATTERSON RANCH COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1921-01-24
Citations: 184 Cal. 809
Docket Number: L. A. No. 6394; L. A. No. 6426; L. A. No. 6625
Parties: C. J. PROUD, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; THE PATTERSON RANCH COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 809–809

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 6394.
Department Two.
January 24, 1921.]
C. J. PROUD, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; THE PATTERSON RANCH COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
[L. A. No. 6426.
Department Two
January 24, 1921.]
[L. A. No. 6625.
Department Two
January 24, 1921.]
Negligence—Loss op Beans—Destruction op Warehouse—Liability op Warehouseman.—Judgments affirmed upon the authority of Punlcle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714.
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Ventura County. Merle J. Rogers, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are identical with those stated in the opinion in Bunkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714.
Charles F. Blackstock for Appellant.
Robert M. Clarke, Henry L. Knoop, I. W. Stewart, A. D. Shaw and W. W. Hindman for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT
Although they are three separate and independent suits, the three above-mentioned eases are identica in their facts with the facts of the case of Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714, [195 Pac. 898]. The points urged for a reversal in these cases by appellant, Southern Pacific Milling Company, are the same as those which were presented in said case of Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., and, therefore, what we have said in the latter case sufficiently disposes of the points made. Upon the authority of that case the judgments in these three cases are affirmed.