Case Name: THOMAS E. BAILLEY, Respondent, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1912-06-15
Citations: 19 Cal. App. 274
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1025
Parties: THOMAS E. BAILLEY, Respondent, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 274–274

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1025.
First Appellate District.
June 15, 1912.]
THOMAS E. BAILLEY, Respondent, v. ALL PERSONS, etc., Defendants; MARY C. BAGLEY, Appellant.
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 ames 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.
F. O’Callaghan, and George A. Connolly, for Respondent.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J.
The questions involved herein are the same as those in the case of Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], decided this day, and, for the reasons stated in the opinion 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.