In Re Lovall
California Supreme Court
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Nutter, Hancock & Rutherford, A. P. Hayne, Guard C. Darrah, District Attorney, and Tom H. Louttit, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
Petitioner is confined in the county jail of the county of San Joaquin under and by virtue of a commitment issued out of the justice’s court of the city of Stockton, in said county. The return to the writ of habeas corpus issued herein shows that petitioner was convicted of a misdemeanor and adjudged to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, and in default of the payment of such fine that he be imprisoned in the county jail of said county. No question is made as to the regularity of any of the proceedings in the action which resulted in the judgment against petitioner. The sole point made by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mathie v. McIntoshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- Robertson v. LangfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- In Re BaxterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
3Cited by4 opinions
- Andrews v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Church v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Frioux v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Frioux v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929