Legal Opinion

Fkumoto v. Marsh

California Supreme Court

Decided September 18, 1900No. S.F. No. 1686PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Action for false imprisonment. Defendant demurred to the complaint for insufficiency of facts, and his demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment. The case turns upon the sufficiency of the affidavit in the original action of Marsh v. Fkumoto, to confer jurisdiction to make the order of arrest. The arrest was caused under subdivisions 1 and 5 of section 479 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The section reads as follows: “The defendant may be arrested, as hereinafter prescribed, in the following cases: 1. In an action for the recov ery of money…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ex parte Yonetaro FkumotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Gillett v. ThieboldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
  3. Dusy v. HelmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. In re VinichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bossin v. TowberCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1995
  2. Neves v. CostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  3. Smith v. ClarkUtah Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Nelson v. KelloggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Gogue v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

5 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