Hinkel v. Crowson

California Supreme Court

Hinkel v. Crowson

186 P. 1042, 182 Cal. 68, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 485

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 1920

DocketS. F. No. 9321.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 P. 1042 (Hinkel v. Crowson) 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

Hinkel v. Crowson, 186 P. 1042, 182 Cal. 68, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 485 (Cal. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

*69 THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of supersedeas pending appeal, in a case in which the judgment adjudged a vendor’s lien and directed a sale in satisfaction thereof. The case falls within the provisions of section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment directing the sale of real property. .The property is in the possession of appellant. Section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the judge of the court rendering the judgment shall fix the amount of the bond. It is alleged that the judge refuses to fix the amount of a bond to indemnify against waste alone, but insists on including therewith an amount covering the value of the use and occupation of the premises. It is claimed that appellant is entitled to a stay upon a bond covering waste alone. (See Englund v. Lewis et al., 25 Cal. 337, 354, which appears to have decided this very question upon a statute like section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)

[1] However, we have no jurisdiction to fix the amount of the bond, and there can be no supersedeas in the absence of a bond the amount of which is fixed in the manner provided by the statute. [2] Petitioner’s sole remedy is a proceeding in mandamus. (See Doudell v. Shoo, 158 Cal. 50, [109 Pac. 615].)

The application is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Olney, J., Wilbur, J., Shaw, J., Kerrigan, J., pro tern., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

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

*69 THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of supersedeas pending appeal, in a case in which the judgment adjudged a vendor’s lien and directed a sale in satisfaction thereof. The case falls within the provisions of section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment directing the sale of real property. .The property is in the possession of appellant. Section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the judge of the court rendering the judgment shall fix the amount of the bond. It is alleged that the judge refuses to fix the amount of a bond to indemnify against waste alone, but insists on including therewith an amount covering the value of the use and occupation of the premises. It is claimed that appellant is entitled to a stay upon a bond covering waste alone. (See Englund v. Lewis et al., 25 Cal. 337, 354, which appears to have decided this very question upon a statute like section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)

[1] However, we have no jurisdiction to fix the amount of the bond, and there can be no supersedeas in the absence of a bond the amount of which is fixed in the manner provided by the statute. [2] Petitioner’s sole remedy is a proceeding in mandamus. (See Doudell v. Shoo, 158 Cal. 50, [109 Pac. 615].)

The application is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Olney, J., Wilbur, J., Shaw, J., Kerrigan, J., pro tern., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 P. 1042, 182 Cal. 68, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkel-v-crowson-cal-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack