Case Name: M. A. CRYDERMAN, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF GLENDALE (a Municipal Corporation) et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1929-12-05
Citations: 208 Cal. 790
Docket Number: L. A. No. 10100
Parties: M. A. CRYDERMAN, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF GLENDALE (a Municipal Corporation) et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 790–790

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 10100.
In Bank.
December 5, 1929.]
M. A. CRYDERMAN, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF GLENDALE (a Municipal Corporation) et al., Respondents.
Chas. S. Conner for Appellant.
W. Turney Fox, City Attorney, Bernard Brennan, Deputy City Attorney, Ray L. Morrow, City Attorney, and Frank M. Moody, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondents City of Glendale and Ruth Kerns.
Arthur M. Ellis for Respondent E. L. Fleming.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This cause relates to street improvement proceedings which, although instituted under a resolution of intention bearing a different number, are otherwise identical with and were started the same day as those referred to in case No. 10085, Woodill v. City of Glendale, ante, p. 564. [282 Pac. 797], this day decided. The pleadings in the two actions are in the same form and the law points made are identical. Therefore, upon authority of said cause, Woodill v. City of Glendale, supra, and upon the same grounds and for all the reasons set forth therein, the judgment rendered in this cause for defendants upon the sustaining of their demurrers, without leave to amend, is hereby affirmed.