Maze v. Langford

California Court of Appeal

Maze v. Langford

117 P. 930, 16 Cal. App. 747, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 241

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 1, 1911

DocketCiv. No. 817.

StatusPublished

This text of 117 P. 930 (Maze v. Langford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maze v. Langford, 117 P. 930, 16 Cal. App. 747, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in his favor, and is taken on the judgment-roll alone.

The facts of the case are stated in an opinion this day filed in the case numbered 826 and entitled, “E. R. Maze, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur B. Langford, as Sheriff of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and The American Bonding Company, a Corporation, Defendants and Appellants,” [ante, p. 743, 117 Pac. 929], which is an appeal from the same judgment, but taken by the defendants.

As will be seen by reference to said opinion, the trial court found that the defendant Langford was not warranted in paying to E. Y. Burke the sum of $500—the subject matter *748 of the action, and accordingly gave judgment for that sum in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, but refused to give plaintiff judgment for the twenty-five per cent damages and ten per cent per month interest provided for in section 4162 of the Political Code, to which he claimed to be also entitled. Both parties have appealed.

We have this day decided in said ease numbered 826 that the stay bond on appeal was void, and that defendant Lang-ford was justified in paying to Burke the said sum of $500, and have accordingly reversed said judgment.

It follows that the plaintiff, not being entitled to the principal, has no valid claim to the incident thereto, i. e., the penalty.

The judgment is reversed.

Hall, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.

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

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in his favor, and is taken on the judgment-roll alone.

The facts of the case are stated in an opinion this day filed in the case numbered 826 and entitled, “E. R. Maze, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur B. Langford, as Sheriff of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and The American Bonding Company, a Corporation, Defendants and Appellants,” [ante, p. 743, 117 Pac. 929], which is an appeal from the same judgment, but taken by the defendants.

As will be seen by reference to said opinion, the trial court found that the defendant Langford was not warranted in paying to E. Y. Burke the sum of $500—the subject matter *748 of the action, and accordingly gave judgment for that sum in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, but refused to give plaintiff judgment for the twenty-five per cent damages and ten per cent per month interest provided for in section 4162 of the Political Code, to which he claimed to be also entitled. Both parties have appealed.

We have this day decided in said ease numbered 826 that the stay bond on appeal was void, and that defendant Lang-ford was justified in paying to Burke the said sum of $500, and have accordingly reversed said judgment.

It follows that the plaintiff, not being entitled to the principal, has no valid claim to the incident thereto, i. e., the penalty.

The judgment is reversed.

Hall, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 P. 930, 16 Cal. App. 747, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maze-v-langford-calctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack