Legal Opinion

Jensen v. Hugh Evans & Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1939No. L. A. 16970PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

This application for a writ of supersedeas presents the question of the extent of discretion which may be exercised by the trial court in requiring a stay bond on appeal under the 1927 amendment to section 949 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Stats. 1927, p. 874).

In 1935 the plaintiffs Jensen recovered a judgment in the superior court against Hugh Evans, Diversified Real Estate Investments Trust #1, Diversified Real Estate Investments Trust #2, and others. In May, 1938, the sheriff of Los Angeles County levied a writ of execution in aid of the enforcement of said judgment upon deposits…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Zappettini v. BucklesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. McCallion v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Born v. HorstmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Halsted v. First Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. In re Estate of SchedelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Clements v. T. R. Bechtel Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Imperial Beverage Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Dabney v. PhilleoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  4. May v. MayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1941

9 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