Case Name: ALDEN ANDERSON, Superintendent of Banks of the State of California, Appellant, v. Y. NAWA et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1914-07-21
Citations: 25 Cal. App. 799
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1324
Parties: ALDEN ANDERSON, Superintendent of Banks of the State of California, Appellant, v. Y. NAWA et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1324.
First Appellate District.
July 21, 1914.]
ALDEN ANDERSON, Superintendent of Banks of the State of California, Appellant, v. Y. NAWA et al., Respondents.
Banks—Enforcement of Liability of Stockholders—Action by Bank Commissioner—Dismissal for Delay in Service of Summons.—The judgment entered in favor of the respondent J. J. Lerman, on December 12, 1912, is affirmed, and the appeal from the judgment entered on February 14,1913, is dismissed, on the authority of Anderson v. Nawa, ante, p. 151.
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George A. Sturtevant, Judge.
The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Anderson v.- Nawa, ante, p. 151.
F. A. Cutler, A. A. De Ligne, and H. W. Johnson, Jr., for Appellant.
J. J. Lerman, C. L. Tilden, and W. F. Postel, for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
The parties to the above entitled cause having stipulated that the appeals from the two judgments rendered in the said action in favor of the respondent J. J. Lermen present questions identical to those presented in the appeals in the ease, No. 1359, Anderson v. Nawa et al., (opinion filed July 17, 1914), ante, p. 151, [143 Pac. 555], and the said parties having further stipulated that the facts in both cases upon which the judgments - of dismissal are respectively based are in all respects substantially the same, and having further stipulated that all briefs and arguments filed or made on the appeal from the judgment in favor of respondent Swayne & Hoyt, a corporation (being case No. 1359, supra), may be considered as made and filed in the appeals from the judgments in favor of said respondent J. J. Lermen.
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered upon the authority of the said ease (No. 1359), and for the same reasons stated in the opinion filed therein, the first judgment, to wit, the judgment entered and recorded December 12, 1912, in favor of said respondent J. J. Lermen, is affirmed, and the appeal from the second judgment, to wit, the judgment entered and recorded February 14, 1913, is dismissed.