Michelin Tire Co. v. Bentel
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The above-entitled actions were tried together upon the same evidence. The judgment in each case was for the defendants and the plaintiff has appealed therefrom. They are presented upon the same transcript. Case No. 5050 is upon an undertaking to release an attachment. Case No. 5051 is upon the individual guaranty of Bentel covering the same claim. We will consider them in numerical order.
L. A. No. 5050.
This is an action upon an undertaking executed by the defendants under the following circumstances: On January 17, 1912, the plaintiff, Michelin Tire Company, a California corporation, began…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lake v. BonyngeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Board of Commissioners v. McIntoshSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- County of Glenn v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Bridge v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- First Congregational Church of Christ v. LowreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bloom v. BenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Common Wealth Insurance Systems, Inc. v. KerstenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Hogan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Southern California First National Bank v. OlsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Turner v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.