BALLINGER v. BALLINGER (1936)

Supreme Court of California

BALLINGER v. BALLINGER *

S.F. 15665

Decided: October 01, 1936

George K. Ford and Simpson Finnell, Jr., both of San Francisco, for appellant. Frederick W. Kant and Horace T. Beverly, both of San Francisco, for respondent.

The petition for a rehearing herein is denied.

Assuming, for the purpose of argument only, that the court was in error in requiring the appellant to comply with the provisions of sections 943 and 944 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a prerequisite to the granting of an application for supersedeas, supersedeas is a discretionary writ, and it was within the province of the court to prescribe that a certain thing be done as a prerequisite to the granting of such writ. The appellant not having complied with the conditions prescribed by the court, by the doing of such thing, the court was within its province in denying the petition.

PER CURIAM.

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Out of date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