Legal Opinion

Lambert v. McKenzie

California Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1901No. S.F. No. 1848PublishedCited by 28 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff, upon March 5,1893, commenced his action against the defendant, sheriff of the county of Napa, based upon section 98 of the County Government Bill of 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 346), and alleged that the sheriff, under execution levy, had collected the sum of $609.08; that he had falsely returned that he had collected and received under the writ only the sum of $311.38; that demand had been made upon him, and he refused to comply with the demand, and judgment was sought for the amount and twenty-five per cent, damages. On the tenth day of April, 1894, the plaintiff filed an amended…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. People ex rel. Dunn v. MeloneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Paige v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Gale v. McDanielCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of MedicineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Pashley v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948

23 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