Legal Opinion

Riverside Portland Cement Co. v. Taft

California Supreme Court

Decided December 19, 1923No. S. F. No. 10340PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

This appeal is taken because of the refusal of the trial court to reduce the judgment obtained by respondent in an action against appellants as sureties on a claim and delivery bond given for the redelivery of certain personal property by applying a sum of money seized by respondent on attachment levied upon the personal property of respondent’s debtor, but which sum of money was not claimed by the third party claimant and was not taken from the sheriff’s possession in the replevin suit; and, further, because of the court’s refusal or failure to apply the value of certain personal property…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hunt v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Burke v. KochCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Whetmore v. RupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Nickerson v. ChattertonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  5. Metrovich v. JovovichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Commercial Discount Co. v. CowenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Taylor v. Forte Hotels InternationalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. Bisconer v. BillingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Bogue v. RoethCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Steele v. Marlborough Hall Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1929

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