TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Green v. Hebbard

HANNAH GREEN v. J. C. B. HEBBARD, Judge of the Superior Court

Green v. Hebbard, 30 P. 202 (Cal. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 17, 1892
Docket
No. 15071
Citations
30 P. 20295 Cal. 391892 Cal. LEXIS 783
Syllabus
Appealable Order — Order Refusing to Vacate Order for Writ of Possession—Motion by Stranger to Record. — An appeal lies from an order denying the motion of one not a party to the record to vacate or modify an order for a writ of possession. Id. — Stay op Execution—Duty of Court to Fix Bond —Mandamus. — One having a right of appeal from such order may insist upon the duty of the court to fix the amount of the undertaking necessary to stay the operation of the writ of possession, under section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the discharge of such duty may he compelled by writ of mandate. Id. — Merits of Appeal not Considered. — Upon application for a writ of mandate to compel the court to fix the amount of a bond to stay execution, the merits of the ruling appealed from cannot he considered.
Summary
Application to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandate. The petition sets forth a recoyery of the possession of a tract of land in an action of ejectment brought August 12, 1873, by William Ford, in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, against the husband of petitioner, B. S. Green, and other defendants, to which action petitioner was not a party. On the fourth day of August, 1881, judgment was entered in said action by default against said B. S. Green, and in favor of H. 0. Hyde, assignee of said Ford; and on November 20, 1888, a writ of possession was issued and executed by dispossessing certain tenants, and by petitioner, who was in possession of a certain part of the land, attorning to the plaintiff's successor in interest. The order granting this writ was subsequently annulled. On March 26,1892, R. S. Thornton, claiming to be a grantee of B. S. Green, procured an order without notice, awarding a writ of possession in his favor, which order both petitioner and plaintiff’s assignee moved to vacate, and that motion was denied on the thirty-first day of May, 1892. From the order denying this motion, petitioner sought to appeal, and moved the court to fix the amount of an undertaking to stay execution of the order to be appealed from. The motion was refused, whereupon petitioner presented this application for a writ of mandate to compel the fixing of the amount of the under, taking.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

The Court.

The petitioner is entitled to appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate or modify the *41 order made in the action of Hyde v. Boyle, for the writ of possession. (People v. Grant, 45 Cal. 97 ; City of San José v. Fulton, 45 Cal. 316 .) Having the right of appeal, it is the duty of the respondent upon her application to fix the amount of the undertaking necessary to stay the operation of the writ of possession, under section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

We cannot upon this present application consider whether the court was right or wrong in its ruling upon petitioner’s motion to vacate or modify the order for the issuance of the writ of possession, as the questions which would be involved in such an appeal are not before us.

Ordered that a peremptory writ of mandate issue in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Hearing in Bank denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1897: 11904: 11908: 11910: 11911: 11912: 11913: 11916: 11927: 11928: 11944: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Calif. Etc. Co.114 P. 838 (Cal. 1911)
  2. Greif v. Dullea153 P.2d 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)
  3. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Superior Court136 P. 538 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
  4. Scott v. Superior Court256 P. 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
  5. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. Harwell268 P. 341 (Cal. 1928)
  6. State ex rel. Cook v. Board of Comm'rs137 N.W. 354 (S.D. 1912)

Most recent

  1. Greif v. Dullea153 P.2d 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)
  2. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. Harwell268 P. 341 (Cal. 1928)
  3. Scott v. Superior Court256 P. 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
  4. State v. Carlson157 N.W. 657 (S.D. 1916) · Dissent
  5. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Superior Court136 P. 538 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
  6. State ex rel. Cook v. Board of Comm'rs137 N.W. 354 (S.D. 1912)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Mayor of San Jose v. Fulton, 45 Cal. 316 (1873) 20
People v. Grant, 45 Cal. 97 (1872) 17

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