Legal Opinion

Ex parte Acock

California Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1890No. 20620PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Application to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.

The petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt by the superior court of Sacramento County, and seeks to be discharged from custody by this proceeding, on the ground that the commitment and judgment are void. The commitment is a certified copy of the judgment. The recitals in the judgment show that on the twenty-second day of August, 1869, an action of claim and delivery was commenced by the petitioner against Salome E. Acock and Nellie T. Halsey for the recovery of some wheat and barley then in the possession of one W. K. Lindsay, as the agent of the defendants in said action; that a proper…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. King v. . BarnesNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Ex parte Ah MenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Biggs v. GarrardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1846

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. In Re MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Creekmore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
  3. Morelli v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  4. People v. BarryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. State ex rel. Harvey v. NewtonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1907

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