Buckley

Goodwin & Co. v. Buckley

Good Law
54 Cal. 295
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,395California863 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Departmentmorrison, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the late District Court of the Twenty-third Judicial District, made on the 3rd day of September, 1878, denying defendants’ motion to discharge an attachment issued in the above entitled action.

In the transcript is found a stipulation that a complaint in proper form, and sufficient to justify the issuance of an attachment, was duly filed in the action. It also appears from the transcript that an affidavit for an attachment was filed in the case, and that thereupon a writ of attachment was duly issued on the 6th day of July, 1875.

On the 2nd of September, 1878, defendants gave notice of a motion to discharge the attachment, and after hearing said motion, the District Court, on the 3rd day of September, 1878, denied the same, whereupon defendants took an appeal to this Court, and assign as error the refusal of the Court below to dissolve the attachment.

In the notice of motion, defendants assign several grounds, but it is only necessary to notice the fifth, as that was the only ground relied upon on the argument of the appeal. It is as follows:

The difficulty in this case grows out of two conflicting and contradictory acts of the Legislature,…

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.