Langenour v. French

34 Cal. 92
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1867·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

By the Court, Sawyer, J.:

Although the language used is not very exact or apt, wre think the petition substantially shows the jurisdictional facts. So, also, the order made by the Judge might in some respects have been better expressed; yet, the effect is, to combine an order for meeting of the creditors with an order to publish the notice. It necessarily imports that the creditors are required to meet on the day they are to be notified [98]*98to meet. Jurisdiction having been obtained, we do not think the evidence discloses facts sufficient to vitiate the judgment discharging the insolvent.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Langenour v. French, 34 Cal. 92 (Cal. 1867).

34 Cal. 92 (Langenour v. French) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

England v. Moore Equipment Co.
94 F. Supp. 532 (N.D. California, 1950)
Haub v. Tuttle
251 P. 925 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Edwards v. Sweigert
115 P. 256 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Primm v. Superior Court
84 P. 786 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
Ohleyer v. Bunce
4 P. 549 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Read v. Rahm
4 P. 111 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Day v. Superior Court
61 Cal. 489 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
Flint v. Wilson
36 Cal. 24 (California Supreme Court, 1868)