Roush v. Van Hagen

California Supreme Court

Roush v. Van Hagen

18 Cal. 668, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 265

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

The appeal must be dismissed. The true construction is that the sureties must justify before a County Judge—when that is the officer selected—of the county in which the suit is. Any other construction, if. it did not render the main provisions of the statute practically inoperative, would lead to very onerous and embarrassing results. We think the natural construction of the language of the three hundred and fifty-fifth section of the Practice Act leads to this conclusion.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

The appeal must be dismissed. The true construction is that the sureties must justify before a County Judge—when that is the officer selected—of the county in which the suit is. Any other construction, if. it did not render the main provisions of the statute practically inoperative, would lead to very onerous and embarrassing results. We think the natural construction of the language of the three hundred and fifty-fifth section of the Practice Act leads to this conclusion.

Ordered accordingly.

Roush v. Van Hagen, 18 Cal. 668, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 265 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

18 Cal. 668 (Roush v. Van Hagen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related