Hansen v. Martin

63 Cal. 282, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 431
California Supreme Court·Decided March 28, 1883·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Martin, in appealing to this court from the judgment rendered against him, filed an undertaking with Dager and Hill as sureties. The judgment was affirmed, and on the going down of the remittitur the plaintiff moved, under section 942, Code of Civil Procedure, for judgment against the sureties. Hotice of the motion was served on Dager only. The court entered judgment against him alone.

"We think that it was error to render judgment under that section against one of the sureties only, no reason appearing why the other was not joined, except that he could not be found and served with notice. The section provides for a judgment against the sureties ”; and this being a statutory proceeding, the course pointed out by the statute must be strictly pursued. The terms of the bond did not, if it could have done so, authorize a variation from the provision of the statute; it authorized the entry of judgment “against the undersigned sureties.”

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Hansen v. Martin, 63 Cal. 282, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 431 (Cal. 1883).

63 Cal. 282 (Hansen v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. American Surety Insurance
89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 422 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
People v. American Bankers Insurance
4 Cal. App. 4th 348 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
Remington v. Eastern Railway Co. of Minnesota
84 N.W. 898 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1901)
Sanders v. Graves
105 F. 849 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana, 1901)
Peyre v. Peyre
21 P. 838 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Davis v. Heimbach
17 P. 199 (California Supreme Court, 1888)