Legal Opinion

Watson v. Pryor

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 11, 1920No. Civ. No. 2198PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PREWETT, P. J., pro tem.

In this case the plaintiff and appellant appeals from eighteen orders made by the lower court on proceedings supplemental to execution. But one notice of appeal was given. The clerk certifies that “an undertaking on appeal in due form has been properly filed in the foregoing action.”

The defendant and respondent insists that, as there were eighteen appeals and but one undertaking, the appeals must be dismissed, and he cites authorities which sustain his position. (People v. Center, 61 Cal. 191; Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626, [12 Pac. 799]; Meley v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. McCullough v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  2. McGuire v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Kaltschmidt v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. People v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Home & Loan Associates v. WilkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Lakin v. Watkins Associated IndustriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Williams v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Imperial Beverage Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Lake v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Elsman v. ElsmanNevada Supreme Court · 1931

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

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

Powered by the Exa API