Bradley Co. v. Mulcrevy
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the County Clerk of the City and County of San Francisco, and to J. M. Seawell, one of the judges of the Superior Court thereof. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Stoney, Rouleau & Stoney, and Orville C. Pratt, Jr., for Petitioner.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This is an original proceeding for a writ of mandate requiring the issuance of a writ of possession upon a judgment recovered by petitioner in an action of ejectment instituted by it against Emma B. Bradley. An alternative writ of mandate was issued by this court. Return was made by way of demurrer and answer. The material facts are not in controversy, and may be briefly stated as follows:
Judgment for the recovery of the possession of a parcel of land in the city and county of San Francisco was entered in the superior court of said city and county in favor of Bradley Company, the petitioner…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- London & San Francisco Bank, Ltd. v. ParrottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Hill v. FinniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Swain v. GravesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Austin v. Union Paving and Contracting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1906
- Ogden v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Board of Law Examiners v. SpriggsWyoming Supreme Court · 1945
- Lane-Wells Co. v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Howland v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Howland v. LamptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Stewart v. WhitmyreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.