County of Monterey v. McKee
51 Cal. 255
Opinion
It is not necessary to decide whether the county judge had authority to hear or determine the motion to discharge the attachment, since, assuming he had jurisdiction, he determined it wrongly.
The official bond of the defendant as county treasurer was an obligation for the direct payment of money. (San Francisco v. Brader, 50 Cal. 506; Hathaway v. Davis, 83 Cal. 161.)
Order appealed from reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
County of Monterey v. McKee, 51 Cal. 255 (Cal. 1876).
51 Cal. 255 (County of Monterey v. McKee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rose v. Pearman
329 P.2d 501 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Tyson v. Reinecke
145 P. 153 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
Ancient Order of Hibernians v. Sparrow
64 L.R.A. 128 (Montana Supreme Court, 1903)