Bolles

Bolles v. Hilton & Paley, Inc.

Good Law
101 Cal. App. 92·1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 952·281 P. 73
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 3, 1929Docket No. 6892.California479 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries a motion for nonsuit was granted, and the defendants recovered judgment for costs in the sum of $122.80. Plaintiff appealed from judgment, which appeal is now pending in this court. Plaintiff now applies for writ of supersedeas to stay enforcement of the judgment.

In addition to the facts above noted appellant states in her petition that after filing her notice of appeal she filed an undertaking in a sum twice the amount of the judgment entered in favor of the defendants and gave notice thereof to the defendants, who did not except to the sureties. Nevertheless, on demand of defendants, an execution was issued and by the sheriff levied upon property of appellant. Based upon the foregoing facts appellant asks for the writ of supersedeas.

On this motion no questions of fact are raised, but respondents claim that the stay bond, of which a copy is attached to the petition, was not signed by two persons entitled to be sureties on such bond. The persons named thereon are Charles I. Bolles and Constance Bolles. Charles I. Bolles is the husband of the plaintiff Lillie H. Bolles and is her coplaintiff in the action. Respondent has…

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.