Beemer v. Roher

California Court of Appeal

Beemer v. Roher

30 P.2d 549, 137 Cal. App. 298, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 831

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 10, 1934

DocketDocket No. 8988.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 P.2d 549 (Beemer v. Roher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beemer v. Roher, 30 P.2d 549, 137 Cal. App. 298, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] Pending the hearing of the appeal in the above-entitled cause, one of the appellants, Pacific States Savings and Loan Company, applied to this court for and *Page 299 was granted a writ of supersedeas to stay the execution of that part of the judgment directing said company to pay "forthwith" a sum of money in its possession, which the trial court by its judgment decreed was the property of one of the respondents. Subsequently the respondents moved to vacate and set aside said writ. The appeal has now been determined on the merits (Beemer v. Roher, ante, p. 293 [30 P.2d 547]), the judgment being reversed with directions to revise and re-enter the same in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion filed therein. The entry of the revised judgment will supersede the one appealed from, and therefore the questions raised by respondents' motion to vacate and set aside said writ of supersedeas have become moot. Upon that ground respondents' motion is dismissed.

Tyler, P.J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1] Pending the hearing of the appeal in the above-entitled cause, one of the appellants, Pacific States Savings and Loan Company, applied to this court for and *Page 299 was granted a writ of supersedeas to stay the execution of that part of the judgment directing said company to pay "forthwith" a sum of money in its possession, which the trial court by its judgment decreed was the property of one of the respondents. Subsequently the respondents moved to vacate and set aside said writ. The appeal has now been determined on the merits (Beemer v. Roher, ante, p. 293 [30 P.2d 547]), the judgment being reversed with directions to revise and re-enter the same in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion filed therein. The entry of the revised judgment will supersede the one appealed from, and therefore the questions raised by respondents' motion to vacate and set aside said writ of supersedeas have become moot. Upon that ground respondents' motion is dismissed.

Tyler, P.J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 P.2d 549, 137 Cal. App. 298, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beemer-v-roher-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack