Hubbard

Hubbard v. University Bank

Good Law
120 Cal. 632·1898 Cal. LEXIS 823·52 P. 1070
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 20, 1898L. A. No. 485California552 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

This is a motion by appellants for a supersedeas. The appeal is from a decree directing the sale of mortgaged premises, and for a deficiency judgment. Upon the éx parte application of appellants the trial judge fixed the amount of a stay bond at two thousand four hundred dollars, and á "bond *633 in that amount was filed. Subsequently the respondent,: upon notice to appellants, moved the trial court to enlarge the amount of the stay bond, and- an order .was thereupon entered requiring appellants to increase their bond within-five.days to six thousand dollars. This order having been disregarded by appellants, the sheriff proceeded .under his order of sale to sell- the "property, which was bid in by the respondent. Upon these facts we are "asked to set aside the sale of the property and. direct a stay of all proceedings under the decree pending the appeal. : . ..

The only question to be decided is whether, after a stay bond has been filed in compliance with an ex parte order fixing the amount, the trial court retains any power to vacate or modify such order so as to require a bond in a larger amount.

It has been generally understood, by the profession, and in Boob v. Hall, 105…

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.