Legal Opinion

Donnelly v. Strueven

California Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1883PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from an order of the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, city and county of San Francisco, refusing to discharge an attachment. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

1Per curiam

Plaintiffs sued on a contract, by the terms of which they promised to sell, and defendant promised to buy *183and pay for, certain hides, at the rate of five dollars each. The breach is that defendant refused to receive and pay for the hides as provided by the terms of the contract, whereby plaintiffs have sustained damages, etc.

An attachment was issued in the case, and defendant served a notice of motion to discharge the same on the following grounds:—

“1. That the undertaking filed herein in behalf of plaintiffs is insufficient in form and substance, and does not comply with the statute in this;…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Freeborn v. GlazerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Loucks v. EdmondsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. De Leonis v. EtchepareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Willett & Burr v. AlpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Dunn v. MackeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Peterson v. ShermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Republic Truck Sales Corp. v. PeakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

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

Powered by the Exa API