Green v. Hebbard
This text of 30 P. 202 (Green v. Hebbard) 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.
Opinion
The petitioner is entitled to appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate or modify the [41]*41order made in the action of Hyde v. Boyle, for the writ of possession. (People v. Grant, 45 Cal. 97; City of San José v. Fulton, 45 Cal. 316.) Having the right of appeal, it is the duty of the respondent upon her application to fix the amount of the undertaking necessary to stay the operation of the writ of possession, under section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
We cannot upon this present application consider whether the court was right or wrong in its ruling upon petitioner’s motion to vacate or modify the order for the issuance of the writ of possession, as the questions which would be involved in such an appeal are not before us.
Ordered that a peremptory writ of mandate issue in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
30 P. 202, 95 Cal. 39, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-hebbard-cal-1892.