TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Campbell v. Judd

CAMPBELL and Others v. JUDD and Others

Campbell v. Judd, 7 P. 804 (Cal. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 26, 1885
Docket
No. 9614
Citations
7 P. 8042 Cal. Unrep. 522
Syllabus
Insolvency—Petition in Insolvency Held Sufficient.1
Summary
APPEAL from Superior Court, Nevada County. The petition for insolvency mentioned in the opinion is as follows: “ [Title of Court and Cause.] “To the Hon. John Caldwell, Superior Judge of said Court: “The petition of Wilcox & Powers & Co. (a copartnership), Carton, McCarthy & Co. (a copartnership), William Treloar, Theodore Wilhelm, and William Campbell, all residents and citizens of the state of California, respectfully shows that Jas. F. Judd and M. McDonough, copartners under the name and style of ‘J. F. Judd,’ are indebted to your petitioners as follows: To Wilcox, Powers & Co. in the sum of $346, for goods delivered to them during 1883; to William Treloar in the sum of $6.75, for goods delivered to them during 1883; to Theodore Wilhelm in the sum of $22.95, for goods delivered to them during 1883; to William Campbell in the sum of $251.40, for goods delivered to them in 1883; that all of said debts and demands accrued in this state. And your petitioners further represent that each of said sums are due and unpaid, and have not been assigned to your petitioners’ in whole or part; that said Jas. F. Judd and McDonough reside in said county, and have permitted their property to remain under attachment for over four days, and that they are insolvent, and have so been before and ever since said attachment was levied on their said property; that the said insolvents have no other property. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that this court issue an order to show cause, at a time and place fixed by this court, why the said J. F. Judd and M. McDonough should not be adjudged insolvents, and the surrender of their estates be made for the benefit of their creditors, in the manner required by insolvent debtors. “A. BURROWS, “Attorney for Petitioners. “ [Duly verified.] ”

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.

By the COURT.

Conceding, without deciding, that the appellant has the right to prosecute this appeal, we are of opinion that the record is without error. The contention here is that the petition is defective. We have examined it, and are of opinion that it complies with the requirements of the statute, and is sufficient. Orders affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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