Wollenshlager v. Riegel

186 Cal. 622
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 4, 1921
DocketL. A. No. 7009
StatusPublished

This text of 186 Cal. 622 (Wollenshlager v. Riegel) 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
Wollenshlager v. Riegel, 186 Cal. 622 (Cal. 1921).

Opinion

THE COURT.

The petition of appellants for a supersedeas shows that the action in the court below was to procure an injunction to stay an execution sale. The injunction was refused. Appellants ask a supersedeas to stay the execution which they sought to have enjoined in the court below. The effect would be that this court would grant the injunction which the court below refused to grant. [1] It is well established that this court is without power to exercise [623]*623original jurisdiction of this character. (Napa etc. Co. v. Calistoga etc. Co., 174 Cal. 411, [163 Pac. 497]; Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 109.)

The application for a supersedeas is denied.

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

Related

Napa Valley Electric Co. v. Calistoga Electric Co.
163 P. 497 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Hicks v. Michael
15 Cal. 107 (California Supreme Court, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 Cal. 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wollenshlager-v-riegel-cal-1921.