Legal Opinion

Bank of California v. Boyd

California Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1890No. 12998PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco refusing to dissolve an attachment. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.

— This appeal is prosecuted by defendant from an order refusing to dissolve a writ of attachment. It is urged that the affidavit on which the writ of attachment was issued was insufficient, and therefore the court below erred in its ruling. The insufficiency claimed is, that the affidavit does not show that the promissory note on which the indebtedness set forth has accrued, and which furnished the subject-matter for the issuance of the writ, was owned by the plaintiff.

We cannot concur in this contention. It does appear, with sufficient certainty, in our judgment, by the statements of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wheeler v. FarmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Dunn v. MackeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Weaver v. HaywardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hale Bros. v. MillikenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Newell v. WhitwellMontana Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Finch v. McVeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  4. Murillo v. TooleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Flagg v. DareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

6 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