Legal Opinion

Patterson v. Pacific Indemnity Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 14, 1931No. Docket No. 7057PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

An undertaking releasing an attachment levied by the respondent having been furnished by the appellant, the instant suit was based thereon, where the surety affirmatively alleged by answer that “immediately after the issuance of the execution in said action, said [defendant] duly filed and served' therein its notice of appeal in said action and filed the undertaking therein within the time prescribed by law by good and sufficient surety in double the amount named in said judgment conditioned as prescribed by law, staying execution of said judgment pending and undetermined and said judgment…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hill v. FinniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. People ex rel. Central Pacific Railroad v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  3. Jamison v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Crosby v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Bailey v. Aetna Indemnity Co., of HartfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fabbro v. Dardi & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  2. Waite v. HolmesMontana Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Barasch v. EpsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Curley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. Waite v. HolmesMontana Supreme Court · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API