Chilstrom v. Eppinger

California Supreme Court

Chilstrom v. Eppinger

59 P. 696, 127 Cal. 326, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 644

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1899

DocketL.A. No. 585.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 59 P. 696 (Chilstrom v. Eppinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chilstrom v. Eppinger, 59 P. 696, 127 Cal. 326, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 644 (Cal. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

HENSHAW, J.

The action is by the assignee of the judgment to recover on the undertakings given on appeal and given to stay proceedings. A judgment was rendered in the justice’s *327 court in favor of Morgenson, plaintiff, against Grabow, defendant. An appeal was taken, and the undertakings here sued upon were given to support it. Before determination of the appeal Morgenson assigned his judgment to P. 0. Ohilstrom, plaintiff in this action. He made no assignment of Ms rights upon the undertaMngs. After the assignment of the judgment the appeal was dismissed, and Ohilstrom instituted this action in which he recovered judgment, from which defendants appeal.

In Moses v. Thorne, 6 Cal. 87, it was held that, in the absence of an assignment of the undertaking, the assignee of the judgment could not maintain an action against the sureties upon the appeal bond, the reasoning being that the contract of the sureties was entirely distinct from and independent of the judgment, was not a necessary incident to it, and the rights under it did not pass by assignment of the judgment. (See, also, Dray v. Mayer, 5 Or. 185.) The point is determinative of this appeal, for we can perceive no distinction between a case where the judgment has been assigned after it has become a finality, and the case at bar, where the judgment was assigned pending the determination of the appeal.

" The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

McFarland, J., and Temple, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENSHAW, J.

The action is by the assignee of the judgment to recover on the undertakings given on appeal and given to stay proceedings. A judgment was rendered in the justice’s *327 court in favor of Morgenson, plaintiff, against Grabow, defendant. An appeal was taken, and the undertakings here sued upon were given to support it. Before determination of the appeal Morgenson assigned his judgment to P. 0. Ohilstrom, plaintiff in this action. He made no assignment of Ms rights upon the undertaMngs. After the assignment of the judgment the appeal was dismissed, and Ohilstrom instituted this action in which he recovered judgment, from which defendants appeal.

In Moses v. Thorne, 6 Cal. 87, it was held that, in the absence of an assignment of the undertaking, the assignee of the judgment could not maintain an action against the sureties upon the appeal bond, the reasoning being that the contract of the sureties was entirely distinct from and independent of the judgment, was not a necessary incident to it, and the rights under it did not pass by assignment of the judgment. (See, also, Dray v. Mayer, 5 Or. 185.) The point is determinative of this appeal, for we can perceive no distinction between a case where the judgment has been assigned after it has become a finality, and the case at bar, where the judgment was assigned pending the determination of the appeal.

" The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

McFarland, J., and Temple, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 P. 696, 127 Cal. 326, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chilstrom-v-eppinger-cal-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack