McMillan v. Dana
Citations
- 18 Cal. 339
- 1861 Cal. LEXIS 192
Syllabus
<p>Where defendant in attachment applies to the Court under Secs. 136 and 137 of the Practice Act for a discharge of the attachment, and an undertaking is executed by D. & B., reciting the fact of the attachment, and that “in consideration of the premises, and in consideration of the release from attachment of the property attached as above mentioned,” they undertake to pay whatever judgment plaintiff may recover, etc., and the Court malees an order discharging the writ and releasing the property: Held, in suit against the sureties on the undertaking that the complaint need not aver that the property was actually released and delivered to the defendant; that as the consideration for the undertaking was the release of the property, and as the complaint avers such release, in consequence and in consideration of the undertaking, by order of the Court, which is set out, the actual release and redelivery of the property to defendant is immaterial—the plaintiff having no claim on it after the undertaking was given and the order of release made.</p> <p>The recitals in statutory undertakings given in such cases, have the same effect and are to be construed in the same way as bonds making the same recitals, and are conclusive of the facts stated.</p> <p>The sureties on a statutory undertaking given to release property attached, reciting the fact of the levy, the release of the property and promises to pay the judgment, etc., cannot, when sued on the undertaking, question either the fact of the levy, or whether the property was subject to it.</p> <p>Query. Whether these rules as to the effect of statutory undertakings would be different if the undertakings varied from the statute in merely formal matters 7</p> <p>In suit on a statutory undertaking given to release property attached and reciting the fact of a levy of the writ, the complaint need not aver or set out the facts which authorized the issuing of the attachment. The recital of the levy estops defendants from denying
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- summary judgment appropriate when employee was on a purely personal trip to eat dinner while out of town on business
- after employee on business trip registered in hotel, he left to go to restaurant eighteen miles away in order to get a seafood dinner and see the ocean; injury enroute to restaurant not in the course of employment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Baldwin, Field
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.