Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Cal. App. 798

142 P 918

Unruh v. Lummer

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 3, 1914

California Court of Appeal · decided 1914-07-03

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from orders refusing a new trial in each of the above entitled actions. C. A. Raker, Judge presiding. The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in Lummer v. Unruh, ante, p. 97.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1914-07-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 1988

2 district · 10 state decisions

3019141920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHAW, J.

¶1 The above entitled actions grew out of the fact that defendant therein claimed ownership by adverse user to certain lands the title to which was involved in the case of Lummer v. Unruh et al., (Civ. No. 1581), ante, p. 97, [142 Pac. 914], an opinion in which on appeal to this court was this day filed, affirming a judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of defendants therein.

¶2*799 During the trial of said ease of Lummer v. TJnruh, it was stipulated in open court by the attorneys for the respective parties that the above entitled actions should abide and be controlled by the determination of the court in said case of Lummer v. TJnruh, and that upon judgment being rendered in said last mentioned case, judgment in each of the above entitled actions should, without trial, be rendered therein in accordance with said decision. The court having rendered a judgment in favor of defendants in the Lummer-Unruh case, likewise, pursuant to said stipulation, rendered judgments in favor of plaintiffs in each of the above entitled actions, from which, and orders denying his motions for new trial, the defendant has appealed. No briefs are filed herein by any of the parties to said actions, it being understood and agreed that said appeals shall be disposed of by this court in accordance with its decision in the case of Liommer v. TJnruh, above referred to.

¶3 It is, therefore, ordered that the judgments and orders denying defendant’s motion for new trial in each of the above entitled cases be and the same are hereby affirmed.

¶4 Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

/25/calapp/798 · .json · Public domain