Legal Opinion

King v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 15, 1933No. Docket No. 797PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

This action was instituted by the sureties on an appeal bond to recover from the surety on an undertaking given to secure redelivery of property seized by virtue of a writ of attachment. Upon the conclusion of the trial the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs for the full value of the property attached. Prom the judgment thus rendered the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.

The action which gave rise to the present action was entitled McC lintick v. Leonards, 103 Cal. App. 768 [285 Pac. 351]. In it the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the sum of $1300, together with…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Emmert v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  2. In Re Estate of ElizaldeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Southern Surety Co. v. TessumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  4. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. BowenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  5. Estate of WhitneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Morgan Creek Residential v. KempCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. Albertsworth v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Joseph W. Schoenfeld and Gladys W. Schoenfeld, and Cross-Appellees v. R. E. Neher and Marjorie E. Neher, and Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1972
  4. Indemnity Insurance v. SampsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Hickey v. SantosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API