Case Name: HAZEL LE DUC, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants; JOSEPH G. SAUCEDO et al., Respondents, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants; GEORGE A. ROLLE, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1938-07-19
Citations: 11 Cal. 2d 780
Docket Number: L. A. No. 16666; L. A. No. 16667; L. A. No. 16668
Parties: HAZEL LE DUC, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants. JOSEPH G. SAUCEDO et al., Respondents, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants. GEORGE A. ROLLE, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 16666.
In Bank.
July 19, 1938.]
HAZEL LE DUC, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants. JOSEPH G. SAUCEDO et al., Respondents, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants. GEORGE A. ROLLE, Respondent, v. MAURICE BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants.
[L. A. No. 16667.
In Bank.
July 19, 1938.]
[L. A. No. 16668.
In Bank.
July 19, 1938.]
R. D. McLaughlin, Walter I. Lyon, Walter T. Casey and Albert Lee Casey for Appellants.
Don L. Gilman and Entenza & Gramer for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
These three cases are companion cases to McNeil v. Blumenthal, L. A. No. 16665. (ante, p. 566 [81 Pac. (2d) 567]) this day decided. They are before this court on motion of plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal of defendants from an order of the trial court granting relief pursuant to section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or to affirm the order. The question presented is identical with that determined in the McNeil case. Therefore, on that authority, the respective orders appealed from in these three eases are, and each of them is, hereby affirmed.