Eureka Casualty Co. v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal

Eureka Casualty Co. v. Municipal Court

111 Cal. App. 761

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 16, 1931

DocketCiv. No. 7496

StatusPublished

This text of 111 Cal. App. 761 (Eureka Casualty Co. v. Municipal Court) 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

Eureka Casualty Co. v. Municipal Court, 111 Cal. App. 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is a proceeding in certiorari brought for purposes identical with those in Los Angeles Surety Co. v. Municipal Court, (Civ. No. 7495) ante, p. 133 [295 Pac. 591], and upon the same state of facts except that in the present case the bond was given upon an appeal from a judgment punishing the defendant for another and different offense against the provisions of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79). After affirmance of that judgment the defendant failed to present himself in satisfaction thereof and the bail was declared forfeited. Like proceedings were had as in the companion case just mentioned "and for the reasons stated in the [762]*762opinion this day rendered in that case we must make like disposition of the writ heretofore issued.

Writ dismissed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 14, 1931.

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

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is a proceeding in certiorari brought for purposes identical with those in Los Angeles Surety Co. v. Municipal Court, (Civ. No. 7495) ante, p. 133 [295 Pac. 591], and upon the same state of facts except that in the present case the bond was given upon an appeal from a judgment punishing the defendant for another and different offense against the provisions of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79). After affirmance of that judgment the defendant failed to present himself in satisfaction thereof and the bail was declared forfeited. Like proceedings were had as in the companion case just mentioned "and for the reasons stated in the [762]*762opinion this day rendered in that case we must make like disposition of the writ heretofore issued.

Writ dismissed.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 14, 1931.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 Cal. App. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eureka-casualty-co-v-municipal-court-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack