Case Name: H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Appellant; CARRIE PERRY, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Perry, Deceased, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Defendant and Appellant; H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Intervener and Respondent; L. C. ROGERS, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Defendant and Appellant; H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Intervener and Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1914-07-03
Citations: 25 Cal. App. 798
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1407
Parties: H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Appellant. CARRIE PERRY, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Perry, Deceased, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Defendant and Appellant; H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Intervener and Respondent. L. C. ROGERS, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Defendant and Appellant; H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Intervener and Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 798–799

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1407.
Second Appellate District.
July 3, 1914.]
H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Appellant. CARRIE PERRY, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Perry, Deceased, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Defendant and Appellant; H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Intervener and Respondent. L. C. ROGERS, Respondent, v. FRED LUMMER, Defendant and Appellant; H. A. UNRUH, as Executor of the Estate of E. J. Baldwin, Deceased, Intervener and Respondent.
Adverse Possession op Land.—Judgments and orders refusing a new trial in each of the above entitled cases are affirmed, in pursuance of stipulation, in accordance with the decision in Immmer v. Unruh, ante, p. 97.
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from orders refusing a new trial in each of the above entitled actions. C. A. Raker, Judge presiding.
The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Lummer v. Unruh, ante, p. 97.
Sidney Dell, and Scarborough & Bowen, for Appellant.
Bradner W. Lee, Force Parker, Gavin McNab, Garret W. McEnerney, and Andrew F. Burke, for Respondents and Intervener.

Opinion:
SHAW, J.
The above entitled actions grew out of the fact that defendant therein claimed ownership by adverse user to certain lands the title to which was involved in the case of Lummer v. Unruh et al., (Civ. No. 1581), ante, p. 97, [142 Pac. 914], an opinion in which on appeal to this court was this day filed, affirming a judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of defendants therein.
During the trial of said ease of Lummer v. TJnruh, it was stipulated in open court by the attorneys for the respective parties that the above entitled actions should abide and be controlled by the determination of the court in said case of Lummer v. TJnruh, and that upon judgment being rendered in said last mentioned case, judgment in each of the above entitled actions should, without trial, be rendered therein in accordance with said decision. The court having rendered a judgment in favor of defendants in the Lummer-Unruh case, likewise, pursuant to said stipulation, rendered judgments in favor of plaintiffs in each of the above entitled actions, from which, and orders denying his motions for new trial, the defendant has appealed. No briefs are filed herein by any of the parties to said actions, it being understood and agreed that said appeals shall be disposed of by this court in accordance with its decision in the case of Liommer v. TJnruh, above referred to.
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgments and orders denying defendant's motion for new trial in each of the above entitled cases be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.