Wollenshlager v. Riegel
John A. Wollenshlager v. Andrew Riegel
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
The petition of appellants for a supersedeas shows that the action in the court below was to procure an injunction to stay an execution sale. The injunction was refused. Appellants ask asupersedeas to stay the execution which they sought to have enjoined in the court below. The effect would be that this court would grant the injunction which the court below refused to grant. [1] It is well established that this court is without power to exercise *Page 623 original jurisdiction of this character. (Napa etc. Co. v.Calistoga etc. Co., 174 Cal. 411, [163 P. 497]; Hicks v.Michael, 15 Cal. 109.)
The application for a supersedeas is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Napa Valley Electric Co. v. Calistoga Electric Co. S. F. No. 8193. · 1917-02-13
- Hicks v. Michael · 1860-07-01
Cited by
- Eden Memorial Park Ass'n v. Department of Public Works Civ. No. 26719 · 1962-09-21
- Canavarro v. Theatre & Amusement Janitors Union Local No. 9 S. F. No. 16392 · 1940-05-03
- Seltzer v. Musicians' Union Local No. 6 S. F. No. 16214 · 1939-02-27
- Dysart v. Clark Civ. No. 11261 · 1936-11-24
- McCann v. Union Bank & Trust Co. L. A. 15219 · 1935-06-28
- Clavey v. Loney Docket No. 2941. · 1926-11-26