Stark v. Raney

Citations

• 18 Cal. 622
• 1861 Cal. LEXIS 253

Syllabus

<p>An agreement to indemnify a Sheriff for seizing property under execution is valid, if the parties are in good faith seeking to enforce a legal right.</p> <p>An agreement to indemnify a party for a willful trespass about to be committed is against public policy and void.</p> <p>Where a Sheriff seized and sold a wagon on execution in favor of R., who pointed out the wagon, requested the Sheriff to seize it, and verbally agreed to hold him harmless, etc.: Held, in suit by the Sheriff against R. for damages recovered against the Sheriff for the seizure, that the agreement to -indemnify is valid; that it was not a “ special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another,” within the Statute of Frauds—because the Sheriff was acting not for himself, but as ^gent of R., and the promise was to be responsible for his acts as such agent.</p> <p>Held, further, that the Sheriff is entitled to recover, not simply the value of the property which he has been compelled to pay, but also the costs incurred by him in defending the suit brought to recover such value; that Ms claim to indemnity extends to the entire damages to wMch he has been subjected on account of the seizure.</p> <p>In an action upon a verbal agreement to indemnify a Sheriff for seizing property on execution, the Clerk may enter judgment upon default of the defendant in not answering, after his demurrer had been overruled.</p>