Stotland v. Mobile Homes Engineering Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtLillie, J.
Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to discharge an attachment. The sole question for determination is whether the present proceeding is one within the purview of subdivision 1 of section 537, Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes an attachment in an action “upon a contract, express or implied, for the direct payment of money. ’ ’
The complaint, carelessly or inartfully drawn, is somewhat of a hodgepodge. Entitled “Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract (2) Fraud and Deceit and (3) Guarantee of Contract,” the first count alleges the execution of a written contract calling…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- McCall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Willett & Burr v. AlpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Force v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Doud v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Oil Well Core Drilling Co. v. BarnhartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Samuels v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Landry v. MarshallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Crouter v. United Adjusters, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1971