Majority
p. 809[L. A. No. 6394. Department Two. January 24, 1921.] C. J. PROUD, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; THE PATTERSON RANCH COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. [L. A. No. 6426. Department Two [L. A. No. 6625.
Headnote
Negligence—Loss op Beans—Destruction op Warehouse—Liability op Warehouseman.—Judgments affirmed upon the authority of Punlcle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714.APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Ventura County. Merle J. Rogers, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are identical with those stated in the opinion in Bunkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714.
Charles F. Blackstock for Appellant.
Robert M. Clarke, Henry L. Knoop, I. W. Stewart, A. D. Shaw and W. W. Hindman for Respondents.
Although they are three separate and independent suits, the three above-mentioned eases are identica in their facts with the facts of the case of Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714, [ 195 Pac. 898 ]. The points urged for a reversal in these cases by appellant, Southern Pacific Milling Company, are the same as those which were presented in said case of Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., and, therefore, what we have said in the latter case sufficiently disposes of the points made. Upon the authority of that case the judgments in these three cases are affirmed.