BEEMER ET AL v. ROHER ET AL (1934)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

BEEMER ET AL. v. ROHER ET AL.

Civ. 8988.

Decided: March 10, 1934

Clock, McWhinney & Clock, of Long Beach, and Orrick, Palmer & Dahlquist, of San Francisco, for appellants. Fred Miller, of Long Beach, for respondents.

Pending the hearing of the appeal in the above–entitled cause, one of the appellants, Pacific States Savings & Loan Company, applied to this court for, and was granted, a writ of supersedeas to stay the execution of that part of the judgment directing said company to pay “forthwith” a sum of money in its possession, which the trial court by its judgment decreed was the property of one of the respondents. Subsequently the respondents moved to vacate and set aside said writ. The appeal has now been determined on the merits [Beemer v. Roher (Cal. App.) 30 P.(2d) 547], the judgment being reversed, with directions to revise and re–enter the same in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion filed therein. The entry of the revised judgment will supersede the one appealed from, and therefore the questions raised by respondents' motion to vacate and set aside said writ of supersedeas have become moot. Upon that ground respondents' motion is dismissed.

KNIGHT, Justice.

We concur: TYLER, P. J.; CASHIN, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network