People v. Hartley

21 Cal. 585
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 21 Cal. 585 (People v. Hartley) 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
People v. Hartley, 21 Cal. 585 (Cal. 1863).

Opinion

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. and Norton, J. concurring.

The bond executed by Hartley and others embraces several distinct obligations. The principal and each of the sureties bind themselves in certain sums designated; and as we read the instru[589]*589ment, not jointly and severally, but only jointly. The term “ severally,” as used in the instrument, applies only to the different sums which the parties respectively specify as the limit of the liability they assume. Being a joint bond, the signature of the principal was essential to its validity and binding force upon the sureties. As we said of the bond in the case of the City of Sacramento v. Dunlap, (14 Cal. 423) so .we may say of this: “ The liability of the sureties is conditional to that of the principal. They are bound if he is bound, and not otherwise. The very nature of the contract implies this. The fact that then signatures were placed to the instrument can make no difference in its effect. * * Some one must have written his signature first; but it is to be presumed upon the understanding that the others named as obligors would add theirs. Not having done so, it was incomplete and without binding obligation upon either.” (See Bean v. Parker et al., 17 Mass. 591; Wood v. Washburn, 2 Pick. 24; Sharp v. United States, 4 Watts, 21; Fletcher v. Austin, 11 Vt. 447; Johnson v. Erskine, 9 Texas, 1.)

The defects in official bonds, which may be cured upon their suggestion in a complaint, do not embrace the absence of the signature of the principal obligor. Without his signature the instrument is not his deed. There is no bond of his in which defects can be suggested and cured.

These considerations dispose of the case, and render it unnecessary to notice any of the other points discussed by counsel.

The judgment must be reversed and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the defendant upon the demurrer to the complaint ; and it is so ordered.

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

Related

Township of Berlin v. Neidermeier
275 N.W. 204 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1937)
Hill v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
286 P. 1103 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
American Surety Co. v. School District No. 64
219 N.W. 583 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1928)
Melander v. Western National Bank
132 P. 265 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Star Grocery Co. v. Bradford
74 S.E. 509 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1912)
Deer Lodge County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
112 P. 1060 (Montana Supreme Court, 1910)
Adams v. Williams
52 So. 865 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1910)
Novak v. Pitlick
94 N.W. 916 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Middleboro National Bank v. Richards
76 N.W. 528 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Gay v. Murphy
34 S.W. 1091 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
Pima County v. Snyder
44 P. 297 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1896)
State v. Hill
66 N.W. 541 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Stimson Mill Co. v. Riley
42 P. 1072 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
O'Hanlon v. Scott
35 N.Y.S. 31 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Mullen v. Morris
62 N.W. 74 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Weir v. Mead
35 P. 567 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Kurtz v. Forquer
29 P. 413 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Board of Education v. Sweeney
48 N.W. 302 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Schiek v. Trustees of Schools of Township
16 Ill. App. 49 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Cal. 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hartley-cal-1863.