Prentiss

Prentiss v. Chandler

Good Law
85 F.2d 733·1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4234
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 23, 1936Nos. 8031, 8032California4,427 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garrecht, J.

We are here'concerned with an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action instituted by H. F. Schilling (predecessor of William Prentiss, Jr.), as receiver of the United States National Bank of Los Angeles, against the appellee Harry Chandler in case No. 8031 and also a similar appeal in case No. 8032 in an action brought by the same receiver against the Times-Mirror Company.

The complaints were filed on the same day. The tases were not consolidated, but were set down on the same day for trial in the court below. By stipulations made during the trial and at the close of the first case it was agreed that the evidence offered by plaintiff might be considered as applicable to both cases. We are accordingly passing upon the two appeals jointly.

The actions were tried by the court following a waiver of jury trial. At the close of the testimony offered on behalf of the appellant, the appellee moved for general findings in favor of each of the defendants and to grant and enter a judgment of nonsuit, and dismiss the action, and for judgment for the appellee in each. The motion was granted and judgment entered. The correctness of the rulings on the motion is the principal question…

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.