Wilkinson

Wilkinson v. Singh

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 694·93 Cal. App. 337·269 P. 705
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 28, 1928Docket No. 5608.California6,018 words

Opinion

remittitur Opinion

The opinion and decision of this court in the above-entitled cause having been rendered on July 28, 1928, the final paragraph thereof reading as follows: “We have concluded that the judgment in this case should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, unless the respondent shall, within twenty days from the date of the filing of this opinion, file in this court a remittitur of all *346 damages in excess of $370, plus costs if the said remittitur he filed, the judgment then to be modified in accordance therewith and, as so modified, affirmed. It is so ordered,” and it appearing that respondent filed herein on August 16, 1928, remittitur of damages in excess of $370, plus costs, the judgment is modified in accordance therewith and as so modified is affirmed, respondent to recover his costs on this appeal.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on September 27, 1928, and again on October 15, 1928, after reconsidering the petition de novo.

All the Justices concurred.

lead Opinion

Preston, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant Boor'Singh from a judgment entered against him upon a verdict of a jury in the sum of $2,500, and reduced to $1,500.

This ease is between a canine breeder and a Hindu fortune teller.

*339 The record in this ease establishes beyond question the truth of the old adage that it is impossible for two families to live under the same roof in peace and harmony, especially when one insists upon having their dogs reside with them.

In September, 1924, Ernest Lum, a Chinaman, owned a building at 2290 East Fourteenth Street, in San Leandro, California, used as a dance-hall. The respondent Richard Wilkinson and his twenty-seven dogs lived in a small building adjoining the Lum property. The appellant Boor Singh called at respondent’s dog kennel some time about the last of September or the first of October, 1924, and asked respondent who owned the building at 2290 East Fourteenth Street. Thereupon appellant and respondent went to see Mr. Lum, who resides in Oakland, and on this visit appellant claims to have rented the property from Lum for $60 a month, beginning November 1, 1924, but, according to the testimony of respondent, Lum gave the keys to him and…

lead Opinion

This is an appeal by the defendant Boor Singh from a judgment entered against him upon a verdict of a jury in the sum of $2,500, and reduced to $1,500. This case is between a canine breeder and a Hindu fortune teller. *Page 339 The record in this case establishes beyond question the truth of the old adage that it is impossible for two families to live under the same roof in peace and harmony, especially when one insists upon having their dogs reside with them. In September, 1924, Ernest Lum, a Chinaman, owned a building at 2290 East Fourteenth Street, in San Leandro, California, used as a dance-hall. The respondent Richard Wilkinson and his twenty-seven dogs lived in a small building adjoining the Lum property. The appellant Boor Singh called at respondent's dog kennel some time about the last of September or the first of October, 1924, and asked respondent who owned the building at 2290 East Fourteenth Street. Thereupon appellant and respondent went to see Mr. Lum, who resides in Oakland, and on this visit appellant claims to have rented the property from Lum for $60 a month, beginning November 1, 1924, but, according to the testimony of respondent, Lum gave the keys to him 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.