Legal Opinion

Messenkop v. Duffield

California Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1930No. Docket No. L.A. 12416PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Petition for writ of supersedeas. Upon an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County decreeing plaintiff, Louis H. Messenkop, to be the owner and entitled to the possession of real property in the city of Los Angeles, and also awarding plaintiff a money judgment for $1140, defendant and cross-complainant, Kathleen Duffield, filed an undertaking in the sum fixed by the court, to wit, $7,000, with five personal sureties. Said plaintiff, Messenkop, and cross-defendant, William L. Milne, excepted to the sufficiency of the sureties. The sureties were found…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hill v. FinniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. McAneny v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Shain v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Owen v. Pomona Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Nonpareil Manufacturing Co. v. McCartneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Dabney v. PhilleoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Kim v. ChinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Arechiga v. Housing Authority of City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Martin v. RosenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

8 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