Siskin

Siskin v. Dembroff

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 730·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 1224·9 P.2d 908
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 1932Docket No. 718.California5,289 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thomson, J.

two actions were brought by Harry Siskin, doing business as the Angeles Furniture Manufacturing Company, to recover the possession of certain furniture in the possession of defendant Dembroff in the one case, and certain other furniture in the possession of defendant Rosengarten in the other ease, or the value thereof, if recovery of the furniture could not be had. Discount Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation, intervened in each case, claiming ownership of the furniture. It was stipulated by ¿11 parties that, since the matters in both of the cases were handled as practically one transaction, testimony in one case will be taken as testimony in the other case, the eases, however, not being consolidated, and the eases were tried together on the same evidence. The cases were tried without a jury and the trial court gave judgment for plaintiff in each case, from which judgments the intervener appeals. The appeals are presented on a bill of exceptions. The following matters are undisputed: That plaintiff manufactured certain furniture and delivered some of it to an apartment house held by Dembroff and the remainder to an apartment house held by Rosengarten; that plaintiff…

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.