Hertz v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Hertz v. Superior Court

169 P. 258, 35 Cal. App. 83, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 389

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 22, 1917

DocketCiv. No. 2283.

StatusPublished

This text of 169 P. 258 (Hertz v. Superior 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

Hertz v. Superior Court, 169 P. 258, 35 Cal. App. 83, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition for writ of mandate directed to respondent commanding it to dismiss a certain action pending before it because of the alleged failure to file a good and sufficient bond under the provisions of section 1036 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

We are satisfied that the court below was empowered, under the provisions of section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to extend the time in which the bond in question might be filed; and we think, upon the authority of Sciutti v. PacificCoal Co., 30 Utah, 462, [8 Ann. Cas. 942, 85 P. 1011], and the case of Kissler v. Budge, 24 Idaho, 246, [133 P. 125], the court was within the law when it refused to dismiss the cause after a good and sufficient bond had been filed. For that reason the writ is dismissed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 20, 1917. *Page 84

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

Petition for writ of mandate directed to respondent commanding it to dismiss a certain action pending before it because of the alleged failure to file a good and sufficient bond under the provisions of section 1036 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

We are satisfied that the court below was empowered, under the provisions of section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to extend the time in which the bond in question might be filed; and we think, upon the authority of Sciutti v. PacificCoal Co., 30 Utah, 462, [8 Ann. Cas. 942, 85 P. 1011], and the case of Kissler v. Budge, 24 Idaho, 246, [133 P. 125], the court was within the law when it refused to dismiss the cause after a good and sufficient bond had been filed. For that reason the writ is dismissed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 20, 1917. *Page 84

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 P. 258, 35 Cal. App. 83, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hertz-v-superior-court-calctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack