Davis

Gilinsky Fruit Co. v. Davis

Good Law
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 570·98 Cal. App. 301·276 P. 1050
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 1929Docket No. 6475.California1,774 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to recover damages to some shipments of green fruit. The defendant answered and a trial was had before the trial court sitting with a jury. The plaintiff introduced its proof and rested. Thereafter the defendant introduced his proof and rested. Later the plaintiff introduced proof in rebuttal and then it rested. Thereupon the defendant made a motion that the jury be directed to bring in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The motion was granted and a judgment based on that verdict was entered. In due time the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, the motion was denied and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment.

The motion for a directed verdict was based on the ground that summons was served on E. A. Yan Wynen, statutory agent for the Southern Pacific Company, and was not served on anyone’ as statutory agent for Modesto & Empire Traction Company, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, or Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, the roads over which the plaintiff alleged in its complaint the shipment was carried. In its brief the plaintiff quotes many parts of the record showing that the defendant did many different…

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.