Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Llewellyn Iron Works v. McLain 56 Cal. App. 790

← Cases

Llewellyn Iron Works v. McLain

56 Cal. App. 790 Court Second Appellate District, Division One. Decision date 1922-01-06 Docket Civ. No. 3785 English

Contents

Majority

p. 790
[Civ. No. 3785.
Second Appellate District, Division One.
January 6, 1922.]
LLEWELLYN IRON WORKS (a Corporation), Appellant, v. AGNES McLAIN, Respondent.

Headnote

[1] Workmen's Compensation Act — Death of Minor Employee— Eight of Action by Dependent Mother.—Appeal dismissed on authority of McLain v. Llewellyn Iron Works, ante, p. 60, reversing judgment.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles S. Burnell, Judge. Dismissed.
The judgment attacked is that involved in the case of McLain v. Llewellyn Iron Worhs, ante, p. 60.
Haas & Dunnigan and J. J. Wilson for Appellant.
Goodwin and Morgrage for Respondent.

By its complaint filed herein plaintiff sought to have a certain judgment, which was entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff, set aside and annulled and execution thereof enjoined upon the grounds of alleged fraud, mistake, and want of jurisdiction. A demurrer interposed to the complaint by defendant was sustained without leave to amend, followed by a judgment dismissing the action, from which plaintiff has appealed.

[1] The judgment attacked and which it is sought to have annulled and set aside is that entered in the case titled McLain v. Llewellyn Iron Works, ante, p. 60. [ 204 Pac. 869 ], wherein, on an appeal therefrom by the defendant therein, who is plaintiff in the instant case, an opinion was filed in this court on January 6, 1922, reversing the judgment so appealed from. The effect of the order so made in that case is to set aside and annul the

p. 791
judgment which is made the subject of plaintiff’s attack in this action. Hence the record presents a moot question only, and- for that reason the appeal is dismissed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on February 3, 1922, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on March 6, 1922.

All the Justices concurred.

Lennon, J., was absent and Richards, J., pro iem., was acting.