Case Name: MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant, v. JESSE W. LILIENTHAL et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1912-06-15
Citations: 19 Cal. App. 273
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1042
Parties: MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant, v. JESSE W. LILIENTHAL et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 273–273

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1042.
First Appellate District
June 15, 1912.]
MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant, v. JESSE W. LILIENTHAL et al., Respondents.
Judgment affirmed on the authority of Bagley v. Bloom, ante, p. 255.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge.
The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion of the court in Bagley v. Bloom, ante, p. 255.
John Hubert Mee, for Appellant.
Olney, Pringle & Mannon, for Respondents.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
This ease involves the same questions as Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed therein, the judgment is affirmed.
Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 14, 1912.