California Supreme Court, 1892

Green v. Hebbard

California Supreme Court · Decided June 17, 1892

95 Cal. 39; 30 P. 202; 1892 Cal. LEXIS 783

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Calif. Etc. Co. (Cal. 1911)
Greif v. Dullea (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)
Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. Harwell (Cal. 1928)
Scott v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
State v. Carlson (S.D. 1916)
Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
State ex rel. Cook v. Board of Comm'rs (S.D. 1912)
Winsor Pottery Works v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1910)
Elliott v. Superior Court (Cal. 1904)
Pignaz v. Burnett (Cal. 1897)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The Court.

The petitioner is entitled to appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate or modify the *41order 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.