TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Spangel v. Dellinger

GEORGE SPANGEL v. AMBROSE C. DELLINGER, RICHARD M. TREADWAY, JOSEPH W. REAY, and JOHN S. ELLIS

Spangel v. Dellinger, 42 Cal. 148 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1871
Docket
No. 968
Judges
Sprague
Citations
42 Cal. 148
Syllabus
Afpeabanoe of Counsel.—Where counsel appears expressly for certain defendants in an action, his signature to papers in the case after that time as the attorney for the defendants, will be construed as limited to those defendants for whom he expressly appeared.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff sued to have certain deeds from Treadway to Dellinger, and Rom Dellinger to Reay, set aside, on the ground that the first was made with intent to defraud creditors, and that the second was obtained by Reay with full knowledge of such fraudulent intent; and also to enjoin defendant Ellis, as Sheriff, from executing the deed for the property in suit to Reay. The Court found in favor of the plaintiff, and rendered judgment in his favor. Defendants Reay and Ellis moved for a new trial; the motion was denied, and on appeal the order denying the motion was reversed. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. [The former decisions in this case are reported in 34 Cal. 476, and 38 Cal. 278.]

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sprague

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Sprague, J.:

The attorney for Reay and Ellis moves that the appeal in the above entitled cause be considered, and that the cause be determined as to defendants Dellinger and Treadway. On the former hearing it was considered by the Court—and such seems to have been the understanding of counsel—that the motion for a new trial had been made and the appeal taken by Reay and Ellis alone. Upon a reexamination of the record we are satisfied that our former construction was correct. Counsel appeared expressly for Reay and Ellis. His signature to pleadings, etc., after that time, as the attorney for the defendants, will be construed as limited to those defendants for whom he expressly appeared.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1872–1873: 11898–1899: 118722026peak 1872 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kenney v. Parks52 P. 40 (Cal. 1898)
  2. Hobbs v. Duff43 Cal. 485 (1872)

Most recent

  1. Kenney v. Parks52 P. 40 (Cal. 1898)
  2. Hobbs v. Duff43 Cal. 485 (1872)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list