TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sneath v. Griffin

R. G. SNEATH v. MARTIN GRIFFIN, R. A. McDONELL and ALEX MOORE

Sneath v. Griffin, 48 Cal. 438 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1874
Docket
No. 3,791
Judges
McKinstry
Citations
48 Cal. 4381874 Cal. LEXIS 173
Syllabus
When Party may be Declared Bound by a Judgment.—If judgment is rendered against a party upon several promissory notes signed by him, and one of the notes is also signed by two other persons who are made parties defendant, but are not served with process and do not appear, such other persons may be brought into Court to show cause why they should not be bound by the judgment, to the extent of the note v/hich they signed, and they may be declared bound by it.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, County of Placer. * On the sixth day of March, 1870, the plaintiff brought suit against the three defendants on three promissory notes, two signed by defendant Griffin alone, and one signed by the three defendants. Griffin had given a mortgage to secure the notes. Summons was served on Griffin alone, and defendants McDonell and Moore did not appear. Judgment by default was rendered against Griffin, and the Sheriff sold the mortgaged property, and reported a deficiency of one thousand two hundred and ninety-four dollars and ten cents, which was docketed by the Clerk. On the 16th of December, 1872, the plaintiff procured a summons which was served on the defendants McDonell and Moore, requiring them to appear and show cause why they should not be bound by the judgment to the extent of the note which they had signed. On the trial, the only evidence introduced was the promissory motes, the judgment, the order of sale, Sheriff’s report, and docket entry of the unsatisfied balance. The Court entered judgment in favor of defendants Moore and McDonell, and the plaintiff appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — McKinstry

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

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

For the reasons stated in the brief of counsel for appellant, the judgment and order should be reversed, and the District Court should order and adjudge the defendants, McDonell and Moore, bound by the original judgment to »the extent of six hundred and thirty-seven dollars thereof.

So ordered.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did nobexpress an opinion.

How later courts describe this case

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

1890: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People ex rel. Morgan v. Hayne7 L.R.A. 348 (Cal. 1890) · Concurrence

Most recent

  1. People ex rel. Morgan v. Hayne7 L.R.A. 348 (Cal. 1890) · Concurrence

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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