Legal Opinion

Stoff v. Erken

California Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1916No. S. F. No. 6919. Department OnePublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The defendant in this case appeals from an order' appointing a receiver.

The receiver was appointed by an ex parte order in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage. Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where a receiver is appointed ex parte “the court, before mating the order, must require from the applicant an undertaking, ” in an amount to be fixed by the court “to the effect that the applicant will pay--to the defendant all damages” sustained by defendant if the applicant shall have wrongfully procured the order. The record shows that this undertaking was not…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nichols v. NicholsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  2. Van Alen v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API