Roush v. Van Hagen

California Supreme Court

Roush v. Van Hagen

18 Cal. 668, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 265

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 Cal. 668 (Roush v. Van Hagen) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Cal. 668, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roush-v-van-hagen-cal-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack