midpage

Green v. HebbardGreen v. Hebbard

California Supreme Court
Jun 17, 1892
No. 15071
Reporters:
, ,
The Court.

The petitioner is entitled to appeal from the order denying her motion to vacate ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍or modify the *41order made in the action of Hyde v. Boyle, for the writ of possession. (People v. Grant, 45 Cal. 97; City of San José v. Fulton, 45 Cal. 316.) Having the right of appeal, it is the duty ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍of the respondent upon her application to fix the amount of the undertaking necessary to stay the operation of the writ of possession, under section 945 of the ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍Code of Civil Procedure.

We cannot upon this present application consider whether the court was right or wrong in its ruling upon petitioner’s motion to vacate or modify the ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍order for the issuance of the writ of possession, as the questions which would be involved in such an appeal are not before us.

Ordered that a peremptory writ ‍​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍of mandate issue in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Case Details

Case Name: Green v. Hebbard
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 17, 1892
Citations: 95 Cal. 39; 30 P. 202; 1892 Cal. LEXIS 783; No. 15071
Docket Number: No. 15071
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
Log In