Legal Opinion

People v. Aymar

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 27, 1929No. Docket No. 6142PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

The defendant was charged with a violation of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79), a misdemeanor, and the appellant Seaboard Surety Corporation of America executed a bail bond for him, which bond reads in part as follows: “Now, we, the Seaboard Surety Corporation of America, hereby undertake that the above defendant, James Aymar, will appear and answer the charge above mentioned in whatever court it may be prosecuted, and will at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and process of the court, and if convicted, will appear for judgment and render himself in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Reay v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Duerr v. SloanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Hawley v. Gray Bros. Artificial Stone Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  4. People v. BuddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  5. People v. EbnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People v. Wilshire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  2. Hart Bros. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Dale v. City Court of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. State v. SuperSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968

11 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