Legal Opinion

Dunham v. Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 24, 1934No. Civ. No. 9821PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

The defendants appealed from a money judgment which had been rendered against them and furnished a timely undertaking in the usual form, to which exceptions were taken and notice of hearing thereon was served and filed. Owing to mistake and inadvertence the sureties were prevented from appearing at the time and place set for hearing, a continuance was not allowed and execution was about to issue on said judgment. The defendants pray for a writ of supersedeas and that they be permitted to furnish an undertaking pending the appeal.

Relief under strikingly similar circumstances has repeatedly…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Segarini v. BargagliottiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Foster v. FernandesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Ellinwood v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Poncino v. Sierra Nevada Life & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Dairy Holding Co. v. Pacific Coast Diary Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API