Egener v. Juch

California Supreme Court

Egener v. Juch

35 P. 432, 101 Cal. 105, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 989

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1894

DocketNo. 19155

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 35 P. 432 (Egener v. Juch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Egener v. Juch, 35 P. 432, 101 Cal. 105, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 989 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinions

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the lower court dissolving an attachment. The validity of the attachment depended upon the question whether or not the respondents were “ not residing” or “ nonresidents” of this state at the time the writ issued. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 537, 538.) At that time they were actually in the state engaged in their professional work, and were served personally in the state with summons. The affidavits used on the motion conflicted as to where their legal residence was; and considering the decision of this court in Hanson v. Graham, 82 Cal. 631, to the effect that “ the residence referred to by the attachment law is an actual, as contra-distinguished from a constructive, or legal residence or domicile,” we cannot say that the court below was wrong in holding that respondents were not nonresidents within meaning of the sections of the code above referred to.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the lower court dissolving an attachment. The validity of the attachment depended upon the question whether or not the respondents were “ not residing” or “ nonresidents” of this state at the time the writ issued. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 537, 538.) At that time they were actually in the state engaged in their professional work, and were served personally in the state with summons. The affidavits used on the motion conflicted as to where their legal residence was; and considering the decision of this court in Hanson v. Graham, 82 Cal. 631, to the effect that “ the residence referred to by the attachment law is an actual, as contra-distinguished from a constructive, or legal residence or domicile,” we cannot say that the court below was wrong in holding that respondents were not nonresidents within meaning of the sections of the code above referred to.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 P. 432, 101 Cal. 105, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/egener-v-juch-cal-1894.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack