Legal Opinion
Anaheim National Bank v. Kraemer
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 20, 1932No. Docket No. 569PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
Plaintiff appeals from an order discharging an attachment in an action on a promissory note executed by defendants.
The notice of motion given by defendants specified that the motion would be made on the grounds that the attachment had been irregularly and improperly issued and levied. By a motion made in pursuance of such a notice, a defendant whose property has been attached is entitled to question the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which the writ issued. (Stanford Hotel Co. v. Schwind Co., 180 Cal. 348 [181 Pac. 780]; Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Getchell Co., 13 Cal. App. 458 [110 Pac.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Stanford Hotel Co. v. M. Schwind Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Willett & Burr v. AlpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Gow v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. GetchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- Hamburger v. HalpermCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stowe v. MatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Yosemite Growers Co-op Ass'n v. Case-Swayne Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
- Rosenberg v. BullardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Jubelt v. SketersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Bailey v. HansenMontana Supreme Court · 1937
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.