From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doudell v. Shoo

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Jun 16, 1910
158 Cal. 50 (Cal. 1910)

Opinion

S.F. No. 5613.

June 16, 1910.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Geo. E. Church, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Carter Carter, and Carl F. Wood, for Appellants.

C.K. Bonestell, for Respondent.


The application of the appellants for an order of this court fixing the amount for which the appellants shall give an undertaking on appeal, under sections 943 and 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is denied. The judgment appealed from directed the delivery of both real and personal property. In such cases the above-named sections require the judge of the court from which the appeal is taken to fix the amount of the undertaking to be given to obtain the statutory stay of proceedings on that part of the judgment. The supreme court has no jurisdiction to fix the amount for such undertaking. If the judge of the court below refuses to perform his plain statutory duty in this respect, the remedy of the appellant is to apply to this court for a writ of mandate to compel him to do so.


Summaries of

Doudell v. Shoo

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Jun 16, 1910
158 Cal. 50 (Cal. 1910)
Case details for

Doudell v. Shoo

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DOUDELL, Respondent, v. JOHN J. SHOO et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California,In Bank

Date published: Jun 16, 1910

Citations

158 Cal. 50 (Cal. 1910)
109 P. 615

Citing Cases

Jameson v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co.

The judge of the court by which the judgment was given or order made was finally to fix the amount of the…

Hinkel v. Crowson

[2] Petitioner's sole remedy is a proceeding in mandamus. (See Doudell v. Shoo, 158 Cal. 50, [ 109 P. 615].)…