Strong v. Shatto — 201 Cal. 773

Majority

p. 773

[L. A. No. 8556.

In Bank.

July 2, 1927.]

W. A. STRONG, GEORGE C. ALBERT (Substituted), Respondent, v. CLARA A. SHATTO et al., Defendants; G. ALLAN HANCOCK et al., Appellants.

Headnote

[1] Building Restrictions—Restrictions on Use oe Land—Action to Quiet Title.—The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of W. A. Strong, Respondent, v. Clara A. Shatto et al., Defendants; John G. Bulloch et al., Appellants, supra, p. 555.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles D. Burnell, Judge.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Bradner W. Lee, Bradner W. Lee, Jr., Kenyon F. Lee and Loeb, Walker & Loeb for Appellant.

Stephens & Stephens, Schenck & Silverstein, Lovett & Hervey, Frank Carr, S. F. McFarlane, B. Rey Schauer, Anderson & Anderson, Victor E. Shaw & McDaniel, Leroy M. Edwards and John L. Dyer for Respondents.

Maurice E. Harrison, Amicus Curiae.

[1] The parties to this appeal having stipulated that the same may stand submitted upon the briefs on file in the causes of W. A. Strong, George C. Albert, Substituted, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. Allan Hancock et al., Defendants and Respondents, ante, p. 530 [ 258 Pac. 60 ], and TV A. Strong, George C. Albert, Substituted, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clara A. Shatto et dl., Defendants; John G. Bullock et al., Defendants and Appellants, ante, p. 555 [ 258 Pac. 71 ], and having further stipulated that no other questions are presented upon this appeal than those presented and decided in the aforesaid causes, it is hereby ordered, upon the authority of the decisions in said causes this day filed, that the judgment, in so far as the appellants herein are affected thereby, is affirmed.