Peck v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Peck v. Superior Court

31 P.2d 1042, 138 Cal. App. 222, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 596

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 23, 1934

DocketCiv. No. 5156

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 P.2d 1042 (Peck 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

Peck v. Superior Court, 31 P.2d 1042, 138 Cal. App. 222, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 596 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The application of the above-named petitioner for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied upon the authority of section 14 of article I of the Constitution, and the cases of Marblehead Land Co. v. Superior Court, 62 Cal. App. 408 [217 Pac. 536], and Stone v. Cordua Irr. Dist., 72 Cal. App. 331 [237 Pac. 554],

In the Marblehead Land Company case it was held that the court might fix the amount of the security upon an ex parte showing, and that such proceeding did not violate the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution.

In the Stone case it was held by this court that section 14 of article I does not violate any of the provisions of the federal Constitution in providing for the immediate taking of possession of property upon giving security -in the way of making deposits to cover damages in such sum as the court might determine. (See list of cases cited on page 337 of volume 72, supra.)

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

THE COURT.

The application of the above-named petitioner for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied upon the authority of section 14 of article I of the Constitution, and the cases of Marblehead Land Co. v. Superior Court, 62 Cal. App. 408 [217 Pac. 536], and Stone v. Cordua Irr. Dist., 72 Cal. App. 331 [237 Pac. 554],

In the Marblehead Land Company case it was held that the court might fix the amount of the security upon an ex parte showing, and that such proceeding did not violate the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution.

In the Stone case it was held by this court that section 14 of article I does not violate any of the provisions of the federal Constitution in providing for the immediate taking of possession of property upon giving security -in the way of making deposits to cover damages in such sum as the court might determine. (See list of cases cited on page 337 of volume 72, supra.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 P.2d 1042, 138 Cal. App. 222, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-superior-court-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack