TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Macomber v. Conradt

Macomber v. Conradt, 37 P. 382 (Cal. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 20, 1894
Docket
No. 15,259
Citations
37 P. 3824 Cal. Unrep. 723
Disposition
Motion denied.
Syllabus
Appeal.—Where a Surety on an Appeal Bond Disposes of his property pending the appeal, the court cannot require appellant to file a new bond in the absence of a statute authorizing it to do so.
Summary
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; Wm. T. Wallace, Judge. Appeal by Julius Conradt and another from a judgment in favor of C. A. Macomber. Motion by respondent to require appellants to file a new appeal bond.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent recovered a money judgment against appellants in the superior court, and the ease is pending before this court upon appeal. He now makes a motion to this court wherein he prays that an order be made requiring the appellants to forthwith file a new bond upon appeal herein, with sufficient sureties for the payment of the judgment in the above-entitled action, and that such sureties qualify before a justice of this honorable court, and in default of the filing of such bond, or in default of the sureties upon such bond to justify as may be ordered by this court, that this appeal be dismissed. In support of this motion, he filed an affidavit, the material portion of which is to the effect that Maria Conradt, one of the sureties upon the aforesaid bond and undertaking, had disposed of all her property since she qualified thereon, and that, in consequence thereof, said security had become wholly insufficient and inadequate as a guaranty for the payment of the judgment, together with costs, appealed from. No statute has been called to our attention which authorizes us in making the order here prayed for, and we know of none. For this reason the motion and application is denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wall v. Woods238 P. 527 (Idaho 1925) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Wall v. Woods238 P. 527 (Idaho 1925) · Dissent

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