Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOHN A. WOLLENSHLAGER et al., Appellants, v. ANDREW RIEGEL et al.,Respondents.

THE COURT.

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 a supersedeas 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 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WOLLENSHLAGER v. RIEGEL
(Aug 4, 1921)