Legal Opinion

LeFave v. Dimond

California Supreme Court

Decided August 10, 1956No. L. A. 24014PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GIBSON, C.

J.-—In a prior action defendant Dimond sought to recover possession of personal property from plaintiffs, LeFave and others. Dimond invoked the provisional remedy of claim and delivery, filing an undertaking as required by statute. (See Code Civ. Proe., §§ 509, 512.1) After the sheriff served the papers relating to the provisional remedy, LeFave et al. furnished a redelivery bond pursuant to section 5142 and, as permitted by the statute, retained possession of the property. Dimond was unsuccessful in that action, and the present suit, based on the claim and delivery undertaking, was…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Viner v. UntrechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Reachi v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Mason v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. Hays v. WindsorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Krouse v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Bauguess v. PaineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Spellens v. SpellensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Davis v. Air Technical Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1978
  5. State v. Native Village of NunapitchukAlaska Supreme Court · 2007

18 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