Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Himes v. County of Los Angeles 27 Cal. 2d 891

← Cases

Himes v. County of Los Angeles

27 Cal. 2d 891 Court Cal. Decision date 1946-03-19 Docket L. A. No. 18936 English

Contents
p. 891
167 P.2d 189]
[L. A. No. 18936.
In Bank.
Mar. 19, 1946.]
EILEEN C. HIMES, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents.
Murphey & Davis and Alex W. Davis for Appellant.
J. H. O’Connor, County Counsel, A. Curtis Smith, Deputy County Counsel, and Clyde Woodworth, City Attorney (South Gate), for Respondents.

This case presents for determination the same questions which were decided in Siwel Co. v. County of Los Angeles (ante, p. 724 [ 167 P.2d 177 ]). It is conceded by counsel that the issues of fact and law in the two cases are identical, and that the Siwel decision will control the disposition of this appeal.

The judgment herein is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer to appellant's complaint and to proceed in accordance with the views stated in Siwel Co. v. County of Los Angeles.

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Siwel Co. v. County of Los Angeles, ante, p. 735.

Gibson, C. J., concurred.