Bagley v. Lilienthal

BURNETT, J.

This ease involves the same questions as Bagley v. Bloom et al. (No. 1041), ante, p. 255, [125 Pac. 931], and for the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed therein, the judgment is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

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 August 14, 1912.