Bloomer

Heine Piano Co. v. Bloomer

Good Law
183 Cal. 398·1920 Cal. LEXIS 420·191 P. 900
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 28, 1920S. F. No. 8703.California4,033 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lawlor, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, the Heine Piano Company, a corporation, and against the said defendants, G. C. Ringolsky, Frank T. Deasy, James G. Conlan, Robert W. Dennis, and Kohler & Chase, a corporation, in an action brought (1) to vacate the satisfaction of a judgment rendered in favor of the present plaintiff and against defendants Charles and Laura Olson in an action—hereinafter referred to as action 76,831—in the justice’s court of the city and county of San Francisco, and to revive said judgment; (2) to have said judgment “offset, . . . against the judgment in action 85,133 [in said justice’s court] to the extent that one judg ment equals the other”; and (3) to restrain defendants from issuing execution in action 85,133. Judgment was entered on November 8, 1917, granting the relief prayed and continuing the action for further proceedings as against defendants J. M. Bloomer, Charles and Laura Olson, John Doe, Richard .Roe, Cornelius Coe, and Henry Hoe. Defendants Bloomer, Ringolsky, Deasy, Conlan, Dennis, and Kohler & Chase prosecute this appeal, the record of which is presented under the alternative method.

[1] These last-named…

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.