From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frank v. State

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Dec 21, 1908
154 Cal. 730 (Cal. 1908)

Opinion

Sac. No. 1573.

December 21, 1908.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. J.W. Hughes, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

J.M. Rothchild, and S.W. E.B. Holladay, for Appellant.

U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and George R. Sturtevant, Assistant Attorney-General, for Respondent.


The plaintiff, as holder of sixty-five Montgomery Avenue bonds and 2,975 coupons, sues to recover the amount of said bonds and coupons from the state of California. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant upon the sustaining of its demurrer to the complaint.

The complaint is in all substantial particulars identical with that in Union Trust Company of San Francisco against the State of California, Sacramento No. 1570, ante p. 716, [ 99 P. 183], decided this day, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case it must be held that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Angellotti, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Frank v. State

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Dec 21, 1908
154 Cal. 730 (Cal. 1908)
Case details for

Frank v. State

Case Details

Full title:MAX FRANK, Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California,In Bank

Date published: Dec 21, 1908

Citations

154 Cal. 730 (Cal. 1908)
99 P. 189

Citing Cases

Town of Capitol Heights v. Steiner

He collects authorities to the effect that where the ordinance for a municipal improvement provided that the…

Laidlaw Bros. v. Marrs

contract exists, or that the same is void or voidable, or that the public interest demands that it should not…