PERKINS v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. 12584.

Attorney(S)

W.H. Lawrence, Alfred Sutro, Francis R. Kirkham and Pillsbury, Madison Sutro for Appellant. Sullivan, Roche, Johnson Farraher and Caulfield Keil for Plaintiff and Respondent. Smith, Southwell Smith for Interveners and Respondents.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns the second appeal in a case involving Idonah Slade Perkins as Plaintiff and Respondent and Benguet Consolidated Mining Company as Appellant. The prior appeal resulted in an affirmed judgment except for an issue related to an item of interest. Following the prior appeal, the trial court amended its findings, conclusions, and judgment consistent with the appellate court's instructions. The current appeal challenges the modified judgment based on the same record and briefs as the prior appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s reasoning was based on adherence to its prior opinion, which affirmed the original judgment except for the item of interest. After the remittitur was returned, the trial court amended its findings and judgment as directed. The appellate court found the modified judgment to be in exact accord with the instructions previously set forth, and therefore affirmed the judgment on the authority and reasons stated in the prior opinion.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

The court affirmed the modified judgment without dissent, thereby concluding the appeal. The direct effect is the final affirmation of the trial court's amended judgment in favor of the plaintiff and respondent. No new precedent was established by this decision.

Show full summary ...

IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant; SAMUEL I. HARTMAN, as Recei

MEMORANDUM CASES

PETERS, P.J.

This is the second appeal in this case. On the prior appeal the judgment was affirmed, without dissent, except as to an item of interest. ( 55 Cal.App.2d 720 [ 132 P.2d 70], at p. 774 [p. 101].) A petition for rehearing was denied, one justice voting to grant the same. The majority and dissenting justices filed opinions on such denial. (55 Cal.App.2d at p. 774.) The Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. (55 Cal.App.2d at p. 775.) Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for certiorari. (___ U.S. ___ [63 S.Ct. 1435, 87 L.Ed. ___].)

After the return of the remittitur to the trial court, it amended its findings, conclusions and judgment in relation to the item of interest above mentioned, as directed by this court. From this modified judgment the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company prosecutes this appeal on the same record (supplemented by the amended findings, conclusions and judgment) and on the same briefs as were presented on the prior appeal. No contention is made that the modified judgment is not in exact accord with the instructions to the trial court set forth in the prior opinion. Upon the authority of, and for the reasons set forth in, the prior opinion the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Ward, J., concurred.

Appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 25, 1943.