Craig v. Stansbury
California Court of Appeal
APPLICATIONS originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District for a Writ of Supersedeas and for a Writ of Mandate. John M. York, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Andrews, Toland & Andrews, Kenton A. Miller, Hocker & Austin, and W. A. Alderson, for Petitioner.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro tem.
For convenience, the action first above entitled, Craig v. Stansbury, will throughout this opinion be referred to as the action; and the second matter, Stansbury v. Superior Court, will be alluded to as the mandate proceeding. The action was commenced for the purpose of recovering on a promissory note, the plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appeals. The appeal is not yet before us for decision; but the appellant asks for the issuance of a writ of supersedeas, upon his claim that the execution of the judgment had been stayed by the giving of bond, in connection with…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Odell v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Reed Orchard Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Rauer v. HertweckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Hill v. FinniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- McAneny v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1906
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kress v. CoreyNevada Supreme Court · 1948
- State Ex Rel. Coffey v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1925
- Messenkop v. DuffieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Mitchell v. Alpha Hardware & Supply Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Colver v. W. B. Scarborough Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.