Meyer v. Scannell

Cal. District Court

Meyer v. Scannell

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 7

DecidedMarch 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 7 (Meyer v. Scannell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer v. Scannell, 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 7 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

This was a motion to show cause why one Levi Strauss, a surety on a replevin bond, should not be held incompetent on the ground that he was not a householder, having justified as such.

It appeared on the examination before the Clerk, that Strauss had a store and slept in the same, but had no other residence and had no family.

Judge Hager held that householder here meant one who had a fixed residence in the county, and that the term householder was used in contradistinction to a transient resident.

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

This was a motion to show cause why one Levi Strauss, a surety on a replevin bond, should not be held incompetent on the ground that he was not a householder, having justified as such.

It appeared on the examination before the Clerk, that Strauss had a store and slept in the same, but had no other residence and had no family.

Judge Hager held that householder here meant one who had a fixed residence in the county, and that the term householder was used in contradistinction to a transient resident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-scannell-caldistct-1857.