Legal Opinion

Bunting v. Salz

California Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1889PublishedCited by 5 opinions

APPEAL from Superior Court, Alameda County.

1Opinion of the Court

FOOTE, C.

This appeal is taken from the judgment and an order denying a new trial. The appeal from the judgment *195must be dismissed, as it was taken more than one year after the entry of the judgment: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939; Coon v. Grand Lodge, 76 Cal. 354, 18 Pac. 384. The action was to recover $750 damages for the conversion of a wagon by the defendants, which the plaintiff claimed to be her property, and taken without her consent. The defendants Salz and Niehaus, and Trefry, a constable, in their answer denied the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint, and justified the alleged…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Angell v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Coon v. Grand Lodge of the United Order of Honor of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Williams v. LerchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nolan v. NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Bacigalupi v. Phoenix Building & Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1910
  3. Sweetland v. Oakley State BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Frost v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
  5. Milwaukee Building Co. v. WetzelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API