Foster

Foster v. Banks

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 622·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1109·297 P. 106
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 1931Docket No. 6536.California2,045 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Archbald, J.

H. H. Foster and Rena E. Foster, husband and wife, the plaintiffs and respondents, each filed separate complaints in the superior court for damages for alleged malicious prosecution, against the defendant and appellant, Maude Stock Banks. Afterward on stipulation to that effect an order was made consolidating the cases for the purposes of trial, the jury to return one verdict in both cases, one memorandum of costs to be filed, and it was further stipulated and ordered that “in all further proceedings said actions shall be treated as one case”. The actions' so consolidated were tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $2,500, of. which amount $1500 was designated as actual and $1,000 as exemplary damages. From the judgment entered upon said verdict and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial the defendant has appealed.

The plaintiffs were employed by one John M. Seitz at his home near Covina called “The Cloisters”, for several years, when the estate was sold to the defendant, the plaintiffs continuing in her employment after such sale. On July 20, 1922, appellant swore to a complaint before the justice of the peace of Covina…

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.