Norton

Norton v. Hoffmann

Good Law
1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 98·34 Cal. App. 2d 189·93 P.2d 250
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 21, 1939Civ. 2419California3,520 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haines, J.

The complaint in this action is in six counts. In the first count plaintiff and appellant alleges that he was, on October 10, 1892, duly admitted and licensed to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in all the courts of the State of California, and that at all times mentioned in his complaint, and for nearly half a century, he has been such attorney and counselor at law in good standing, admitted to practice law and entitled to practice the same in the courts of the State of California and in the federal courts.

It is alleged that in August, 1933, defendant The John M. C. Marble Company, a corporation, in the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles, sued one Hattie F. Norton, and her husband Aaron F. Norton, who is appellant’s brother, seeking to recover $113.60; that in said municipal court case, defendant Wackerbarth appeared as attorney for The John M. C. Marble Company, and appellant entered his appearance as attorney for said Hattie F. Norton and Aaron F. Norton; that according to his information and belief some time prior to June 20, 1935, defendant The John M. C. Marble Company, defendant John M. Marble, its president, defendants Wackerbarth, Hendrick, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.