Legal Opinion

Shemanski v. Sair

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 24, 1954No. Civ. A. 8219PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPatrosso, J.

In this unlawful detainer proceeding plaintiff obtained judgment for restitution of the premises, following which a writ of possession was issued to, and was executed by the marshal. Thereafter plaintiff filed a cost bill after judgment wherein he claimed the sum of $371.37, which included $1.00 for the issuance of the writ and marshal’s fees for executing the same in the sum of $370.37. Included in the latter figure was the amount of $345.67 paid to the marshal for removing and temporarily storing the personal property located in the premises, which latter item was, upon defendant’s motion…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Murphy v. F. D. Cornell Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  3. Conniff v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Commonwealth v. LennonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Oak Grove School District v. City Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  2. Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports1982
  3. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1982

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

Powered by the Exa API