Legal Opinion
Ross v. Thomas
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 9, 1914No. Civ. No. 1444PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful attachment of personal property.
Judgment went for plaintiffs, from which defendants, adopting the alternative method in bringing up the record, appeal.
The complaint alleges that at the time of the alleged wrongful acts defendant Thomas was constable of Los Angeles township and his codefendants were his official bondsmen; that W. H. and Sarah A. Stager were husband and wife; that on January 29, 1913, plaintiffs Ross and Sarah A. Stager were the owners of certain personal property situated at No. 253 South Main Street in the city of Los…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Van Allen v. FrancisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Popper v. BroderickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- George v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Houser & Haines Manufacturing Co. v. HargroveCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Guthrie v. CarneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- O'Connor v. O'Connor, Rice & BarnesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Hepner v. HepnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Finn v. WitherbeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Mohr v. First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Farmers State Bank of Burbank v. TiptonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934