Heynemann v. Eder

Citations

• 17 Cal. 433

Syllabus

<p>Wheee the Sheriff, under a writ of attachment in the suit of plaintiff against D. M. Eder and P. M. Eder, as the firm of D. M. Eder & Co., is about to levy upon the property of said firm, and a bond is executed by L. and X, as sureties, conditioned to keep harmless and indemnify the Sheriff against all damages, costs, charges, trouble and expense he may be put to by reason of the nonseizure of the property, and also “to pay whatever judgment may be rendered against said defendants; ” and judgment was obtained against one only of the defendants—plaintiff failing on the trial to prove the other to be a partner ; Held, that the sureties are liable on the bond for the amount of the judgment; that the bond, though not strictly an undertaking under the statute, conforms substantially to its requirements, and must be read by the light of the statute and interpreted according to the intention of the parties.</p> <p>Such bond will be presumed to have been executed with reference to the provisions of the statute; and as the security required by the statute is a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be obtained, the bond will be held to be such a security. This is the sense of the instrument, and the fact that judgment was obtained against one only of the defendants, satisfies the condition to “pay whatever judgment may be rendered against said defendants.”</p>