Ferry v. Marr
Ferry v. Marr
188 Cal. 798
Ferry v. Marr
Opinion of the Court
This appeal is identical, as to the questions involved, with the appeal in the ease of Ferry v. O'Brien, ante, p. 629 [206 Pac. 449], and for the reasons set forth in said decision the judgment herein is affirmed.
Richards, J., pro tem., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.
Shaw, C. J., being disqualified by relationship to plaintiff’s attorney, did not participate.
Rehearing denied.
Waste, J., was absent, and Richards, J., pro. tern., was acting.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.