Stensland

Stensland v. Superior Court

Bad Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 2·39 Cal. App. 172·178 P. 549
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 13, 1918Civ. No. 2799.California448 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

After notice duly given, the petitioner herein has applied for a writ of review. Respondents demurred upon the ground that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or to authorize the issuance of a writ of review.

In a certain action in the superior court of the county of San Diego, wherein Jesse George et al., were plaintiffs and the petitioner herein was defendant, judgment for a stated sum was rendered against the defendant. Execution was issued, and notice of garnishment served on J. B. McLees. Thereafter supplemental proceedings were instituted under section 717 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby McLees was brought before the court to answer concerning property of the judgment debtor in his hands. On order of the court made at the hearing of said matter, McLees delivered to the sheriff a certain sum of money, and the same was used in satisfaction of the judgment. Thereafter the petitioner, as defendant in that action, duly presented her motion to said court for an order vacating and annulling said order in supplemental proceedings on the ground, among others, that said court was without jurisdiction to make said order; but her…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.