Lindsay v. Flint

California Supreme Court

Lindsay v. Flint

4 Cal. 89

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 89 (Lindsay v. Flint) 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

Lindsay v. Flint, 4 Cal. 89 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

We cannot sanction the position taken by respondent’s counsel, to the effect that because the plaintiffs in the former suit filed the injunction bond, that they were therefore parties to it, without signing it. I know of no case in which in an action upon a bond or written undertaking, there can be constructive parties jointly liable with the proper obligors. •

The demurrer should have been sustained.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

We cannot sanction the position taken by respondent’s counsel, to the effect that because the plaintiffs in the former suit filed the injunction bond, that they were therefore parties to it, without signing it. I know of no case in which in an action upon a bond or written undertaking, there can be constructive parties jointly liable with the proper obligors. •

The demurrer should have been sustained.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cal. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsay-v-flint-cal-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack