Tarpey v. Shillenberger

10 Cal. 390
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C., J., and Field, J., concurring.

This suit was brought in the Third District, upon an undertaking entered into by defendants, as sureties for other parties, on the latter obtaining an injunction. The condition of the undertaking is, that the plaintiffs in the suit for whom the sureties [391]*391undertook, should pay all damages and costs that should be awarded, against the plaintiff by virtue of the issuing of said injunction by any competent Court. Ho sufficient breach is averred, since it is not alleged that any damages were so awarded. The sureties are entitled to stand on the precise terms of the contract, and we know of no way of extending their liability beyond the stipulation to which they have chosen to bind themselves. Hone of the voluminous matter set up in the complaint helps it. It is fatally defective, and the Court below was right in sustaining the demurrer.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Tarpey v. Shillenberger, 10 Cal. 390 (Cal. 1858).

10 Cal. 390 (Tarpey v. Shillenberger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States Leasing Corp. v. duPont
444 P.2d 65 (California Supreme Court, 1968)
Enscoe v. Fletcher
82 P. 1075 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Offterdinger v. Ford
24 S.E. 246 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1896)
State v. Hall
21 S.E. 760 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1895)
Pinney v. Hershfield
1 Mont. 367 (Montana Supreme Court, 1871)
Hathaway v. Davis
33 Cal. 161 (California Supreme Court, 1867)