Becker v. Schmidlin

11 Citing cases

  1. Shell Oil Co. v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.App.2d 348 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)   Cited 16 times
    In Shell Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.2d 348 [ 37 P.2d 1078] petitioners also sought a writ of prohibition to preclude the superior court from trying a libel case until the plaintiffs therein had first filed adequate cost bonds.

    The decisions under this act fully sustain our views on the question of jurisdiction and the power of the court on motion for dismissal for failure to file bond. ( Dixon v. Allen, 69 Cal. 527 [11 P. 179]; Stinson v. Carpenter, 78 Cal. 571 [21 P. 304]; Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669, 671 [ 96 P. 280].) . . . "However, it is clear that proceedings in the action should be stayed pending the filing of the required undertaking.

  2. Brandt v. Superior Court

    67 Cal.2d 437 (Cal. 1967)   Cited 10 times

    [2] The primary purpose of requiring the plaintiff in a defamation suit to post an undertaking is obviously to give the defendant security for any costs he may be awarded if judgment is in his favor. ( Kennaley v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 512, 514 [ 275 P.2d 1]; Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669, 671 [ 96 P. 280]; Bried v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.2d 351, 354 [ 79 P.2d 1091].) This purpose is, of course, achieved by a corporate bond as well as by individual sureties.

  3. Bried v. Superior Court

    11 Cal.2d 351 (Cal. 1938)   Cited 13 times

    [3] This court is not inclined to dismiss an action where it appears that a party, in good faith, originally endeavored to comply with the statute by filing an undertaking when the suit was commenced. ( Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669, 672 [ 96 P. 280].) We assume, there being nothing in the record to the contrary, that the trial court was not of the view that the sureties, as individuals, were not sufficient to execute the bond.

  4. Carter v. Superior Court

    176 Cal. 752 (Cal. 1917)   Cited 20 times
    Interpreting an identical California statute and stating that “[i]t seems clear ... that the required undertaking may be filed at any time prior to dismissal”

    The decisions under this act fully sustain our views on the question of jurisdiction and the power of the court on motion for dismissal for failure to file bond. ( Dixon v. Allen, 69 Cal. 527, [11 P. 179]; Stinson v. Carpenter, 78 Cal. 571, [21 P. 304]; Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669, 671, [ 96 P. 280].) In the last case cited, it was assumed by this court that the bond filed was in fact void.

  5. Hunot v. Superior Court

    55 Cal.App.3d 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    Section 1030 protects California defendants against costs and charges that they may be awarded in suits by nonresident plaintiffs. ( Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669, 671 [ 96 P. 280].) For the protection of defendants, once a proper demand is made, all proceedings in the action are stayed pending the filing of the undertaking.

  6. Boyer v. County of Contra Costa

    235 Cal.App.2d 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 7 times

    The bond is intended to secure the costs of defendant and this object is accomplished if when the objection is made an undertaking is executed. ( Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669 [ 96 P. 280].)" The reason for such holding is set forth in Becker v. Schmidlin, supra, at page 671: "The jurisdiction of the court in an action for slander does not depend upon whether a sufficient undertaking is or is not filed at the time the suit is commenced.

  7. Hayward Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court

    233 Cal.App.2d 737 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    ( Pacific View Hospital v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.2d 395, 397-398 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 312], citing numerous precedents; Williams v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.2d 436, 437 [ 45 P.2d 1027].) The basic reasoning behind such holding is found in Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669, 671 [ 96 P. 280], wherein the Supreme Court said: "The jurisdiction of the court in an action for slander does not depend upon whether a sufficient undertaking is or is not filed at the time the suit is commenced. It has such jurisdiction even when no undertaking at all is filed, and may permit one to be filed subsequent to the commencement of the action, and, of course, may permit a new undertaking to be filed in lieu of a defective one. [Citations.]

  8. Pacific View Hospital v. Superior Court

    189 Cal.App.2d 395 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 2 times
    In Pacific View Hospital v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 395, 397 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 312], the court holds: "The jurisdiction of the court in an action for libel or slander does not depend upon the filing of a sufficient undertaking," citing a number of cases.

    [1] The jurisdiction of the court in an action for libel or slander does not depend upon the filing of a sufficient undertaking. ( Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary Sch. Dist., 55 Cal.2d 224, 232 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 97, 359 P.2d 465]; Dixon v. Allen, 69 Cal. 527 [ 11 P. 179]; Stinson v. Carpenter, 78 Cal. 571 [ 21 P. 304]; Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669 [ 96 P. 280]; Carter v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. 752, 756 [ 169 P. 667]; Bried v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.2d 351, 354 [ 79 P.2d 1091]; Williams v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.2d 436 [ 45 P.2d 1027].) [2] While under section 834 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all proceedings in an action are stayed pending the filing of a new undertaking after exceptions to the original undertaking have been sustained and the court may, in its discretion, if that undertaking be not filed within five days, dismiss the action, the court is not obligated so to do but may, in its discretion, where there has been an attempt in good faith to meet the order of the court and the requirements of the statute, reasonably extend the time for the filing of another undertaking.

  9. State of California v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.App.2d 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)   Cited 2 times
    In State of California v. Superior Court (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 628 [ 94 P.2d 63], the undertaking was defective because it was not accompanied by an affidavit of the sureties.

    ( Dixon v. Allen, 69 Cal. 527 [11 P. 179]), and also in respect to an undertaking given to secure the payment of costs in an action for slander. ( Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669 [ 96 P. 280].) In the latter case it is said:

  10. Williams v. Superior Court

    7 Cal.App.2d 436 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)   Cited 5 times
    In Williams v. Superior Court (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 436 [ 45 P.2d 1027], an application for writ of mandate to compel the superior court to quash the summons in a suit for libel where no undertaking was filed prior to the issuance of the summons, the court said (p. 437): "The giving of the undertaking is not jurisdictional.

    The bond is intended to secure the costs of defendant and this object is accomplished if when the objection is made an undertaking is executed. ( Becker v. Schmidlin, 153 Cal. 669 [ 96 P. 280].) For the reasons given the petition is denied.