Curtiss v. Bachman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. Euoene R Garber, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
In an action brought in the superior court of San Francisco against the appellant by one Nettie Gilman, a preliminary injunction was issued by the court, and the respondents herein were the sureties in an undertaking given on her behalf upon the issuing of said injunction. The condition of the undertaking is: “ In case said injunction shall issue and remain in full force and effect, the said plaintiff will pay to the said parties enjoined such damages, not exceeding the .sum of five thousand dollars, as such parties may by reason of the said injunction sustain, if said superior court finally…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lambert v. HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Hicks v. MichaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Andrews v. . the Glenville Woolen Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Mitchell v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Bustamente v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Moore v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Mason v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
- Klokke v. EscaillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Russell v. United Pacific InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Black v. HillikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.