Segarini v. Bargagliotti

226 P. 2, 193 Cal. 538, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 338
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMay 8, 1924
DocketS. F. No. 11118.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 226 P. 2 (Segarini v. Bargagliotti) 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
Segarini v. Bargagliotti, 226 P. 2, 193 Cal. 538, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 338 (Cal. 1924).

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a petition for a writ of supersedeas. The appellant within due time perfected.Ms appeal and filed an undertaking upon appeal with two sureties in the amount fixed by the court, two thousand five hundred dollars. Thereafter, the respondent having excepted to the *539 sufficiency of the sureties, appellant served notice that they would justify before the court on a date therein specified. The sureties failed to appear and justify on that date because of a serious illness in the family of one of them, whereupon appellant applied to this court for a writ of supersedeas. Under the rule stated in Nonpareil Mfg. Co. v. McCartney, 143 Cal. 1 [76 Pac. 653], the appellant is not entitled to this writ as a matter of right, but we may properly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, grant him the writ upon such terms as will be just and will adequately protect the rights of the respondent. We conclude that, under the circumstances, the writ should be so granted in order to preserve the status quo until the final determination of the action.

It is ordered that upon the filing by the petitioner with the clerk of this court, within twenty days, of a good and sufficient undertaking upon appeal in the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, conditioned as required by law, and which shall have been first approved by a judge of the superior court in and for the county of San Francisco,, at a hearing upon ten days’ notice to the respondent, a writ shall issue as prayed for herein.

It is further ordered that in the meantime, during said period of twenty days, the ' execution of that portion of the judgment referred to in the petition herein be stayed.

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

Related

Isaak v. Evidon
197 Cal. App. 2d 453 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Sandell, Inc. v. Bailey
193 Cal. App. 2d 518 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Kim v. Chinn
123 P.2d 438 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
Guardianship of Morro
92 P.2d 1012 (California Supreme Court, 1939)
Clayton v. Schultz
87 P.2d 355 (California Supreme Court, 1939)
Dairy Holding Co. v. Pacific Coast Diary Co.
64 P.2d 1111 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Parrett v. Carothers
41 P.2d 595 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Martin v. Rosen
38 P.2d 855 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Dunham v. Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc.
34 P.2d 1031 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Petersen v. Lyders
25 P.2d 993 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Ellinwood v. McCoy
24 P.2d 549 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Rosenfeld v. Miller
15 P.2d 161 (California Supreme Court, 1932)
Willis v. Paul
3 P.2d 339 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Messenkop v. Duffield
294 P. 715 (California Supreme Court, 1930)
Poncino v. Sierra Nevada Life & Casualty Co.
279 P. 1035 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Foster v. Fernandes
252 P. 726 (California Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 P. 2, 193 Cal. 538, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segarini-v-bargagliotti-cal-1924.