Legal Opinion
A. P. Hotaling & Co. v. Brogan
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 26, 1910No. Civ. No. 636PublishedCited by 9 opinions
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Solano County, discharging a writ of attachment. A. J. Buckles, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
A writ of attachment issued in this case which, upon motion of defendant, was discharged on the ground that the affidavit required by section 538, Code of Civil Procedure, “is not properly or at all subscribed or sworn to on behalf of the said plaintiff.” Plaintiff appeals from the order.
The affidavit reads, giving the title of court and cause:
“State of California,
City and County of San Francisco.—ss.
“R. M. Hotaling of the plaintiff corporation in the action above named, being duly sworn, deposes and says: [Then follows statement of the indebtedness to plaintiff and other facts required by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. Board of County CommissionersNevada Supreme Court · 1869
- Ede v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Blyth & Fargo Co. v. Swensen Bros.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1898
- Pope v. KirchnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by9 opinions
- First National Bank v. Clifton Armory Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1912
- Agricultural Bond & Credit Corp. v. Courtenay Farmers Co-Operative Ass'nNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Woodworth v. Town of SebastopolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Robertson Lumber Co. v. ClarkeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.