Case Name: THANNHAUSER & CO., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1917-10-22
Citations: 35 Cal. App. 807
Docket Number: Civ. No. 2289
Parties: THANNHAUSER & CO., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 807–807

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 2289.
First Appellate District.
October 22, 1917.]
THANNHAUSER & CO., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.
Costs — Undertaking in Action Against Nonresident — Power of Court to Extend Time.—Writ of prohibition dismissed upon authority of Bertg v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, ante, p. 83.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District.
The same question is involved in this application as in Hertz v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, ante, p. 83.
Chickering & Gregory, for Petitioner.
Lent & Humphrey, Joseph H. Mayer, and George D. Perry, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
It is conceded that the same question is involved in this application as in Hertz v. Superior Court, No. 2283, ante, p. 83, decided by this court on October 22, 1917, wherein a writ of mandate was denied. Upon the authority of that case the writ in the present case is dismissed.