CRUISE v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Docket No. 14534.

101 Cal.App.2d 558 (1951)

225 P.2d 988

RICHARD C. CRUISE et al., Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

January 2, 1951.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

M. Mitchell Bourquin and Franklin A. Dill for Appellants.

Dion R. Holm, City Attorney, and Joseph F. Murphy, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondent.


PETERS, P.J.

The trial court, after first denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, granted defendant city's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs appeal. It was the theory of the trial court that the complaint was fatally defective in that it disclosed that the claim required to be filed in such actions was filed ten days too late, and that facts sufficient to raise an estoppel were not pleaded.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff Fannie...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases