Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Getchell
California Court of Appeal
"APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County denying a motion to discharge an attachment. Paul W. Bennett, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to discharge an attachment.
On May 6, 1910, an opinion was filed herein whereby the ruling of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion to discharge an attachment was reversed. In that opinion the court overlooked section 558, Code of Civil Procedure, as it was amended in 1909 (Stats. 1909, p. 253), and in the absence of anything to the contrary being said by respondent, whose attorney it appears did not deem the case of sufficient importance to warrant him in filing points and authorities, or otherwise to offer any suggestions…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Ede v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Sullivan v. First Nat. Bank of FlatoniaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Tibbet v. SueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Byrd v. CochranNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Germ v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Alexander v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- First National Bank v. Clifton Armory Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1912
- Hamburger v. HalpermCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Westover v. BridgfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.