TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chase v. Beraud

JAMES B. CHASE v. LOUIS BERAUD and JEAN GARRAUD

Chase v. Beraud, 29 Cal. 138 (1865)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1865
Judges
Sanderson
Citations
29 Cal. 138
Syllabus
Sureties on Appeal Bond.—Where an appeal is dismissed on motion of respondent, based on written consent of the appellant, the dismissal operates as an affirmance of the judgment, and charges the sureties on the undertaking on appeal.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendants, who were the sureties on the undertaking on appeal, appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sanderson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Sanderson, C. J.

The only question involved in this appeal relates to the effect of a judgment of this Court dismissing an appeal upon the liability of the sureties upon the undertaking on appeal, it being claimed that they do not become charged by such, a judgment, and that such a result follows only from a formal judgment of affirmance in whole or in part.

The appeal in question, as appears from the record, was dismissed upon the motion of respondent, based upon the written consent of the attorneys for the appellant. Thus made, the judgment of dismissal was a final determination of the appeal by this Court, and the judgment of the Court below was no longer open for review. Such being the case, the question as to its effect upon the liability of the sureties upon the undertaking is not an open question in this State. Such a dismissal operates as an affirmance of the judgment and suffices to charge the sureties. (Osborn v. Hendrickson, 6 Cal. 175 ; Karth v. Light, 15 Cal. 324 ; Chamberlain v. *139 Reed, 16 Cal. 207 ; Ellis v. Hull, 23 Cal. 160; Rowland v. Kreyenhagen, 24 Cal. 52 .)

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Rhodes expressed no opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1891: 11892: 11893: 21912: 11915: 11918: 11923: 11925: 11996: 118912026peak 1893 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Rowland v. Kreyenhagen, 24 Cal. 52 (1864) 39
Karth v. Light, 15 Cal. 324 (1860) 11
Osborn v. Hendrickson, 6 Cal. 175 (1856) 6
Chamberlin v. Reed, 16 Cal. 207 (1860) 5
Ellis v. Hull, 23 Cal. 160 (1863) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list