Green v. Hebbard

30 P. 202, 95 Cal. 39, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 783
California Supreme Court·Decided June 17, 1892·No. No. 15071·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

The Court.

The petitioner is entitled to appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate or modify the [41] order 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

Green v. Hebbard, 30 P. 202, 95 Cal. 39, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 783 (Cal. 1892).

30 P. 202 (Green v. Hebbard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greif v. Dullea
153 P.2d 581 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. Harwell
268 P. 341 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
Scott v. Superior Court
256 P. 603 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
State v. Carlson
157 N.W. 657 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1916)
Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Superior Court
136 P. 538 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
State ex rel. Cook v. Board of Comm'rs
137 N.W. 354 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Calif. Etc. Co.
114 P. 838 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Winsor Pottery Works v. Superior Court
109 P. 843 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Gordan v. Graham
95 P. 145 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Elliott v. Superior Court
77 P. 1109 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Pignaz v. Burnett
51 P. 48 (California Supreme Court, 1897)