Cochran

In their petition for rehearing appellants call attention to the fact that the author of the opinion herein was not present at the hearing of the oral argument and therefore that the. opinion' should, in the absence of a stipulation covering the matter, have been written by one of the justices present at such oral presentation. In answer to this it is only necessary to remind counsel that immediately preceding the calling of the calendar upon the date of oral argument herein the court announced that unless objection were made at the time of argument it would be deemed stipulated in all matters then before the court that any justice pro tempore might participate in the decision of any or all matters then on the calendar, and that no objection was made by any counsel appearing in the present case.

Defendants have appealed on the judgment-roll from a judgment against them in plaintiff’s favor. The complaint alleges that the action is brought on a promissory note in the sum of $2,250, executed by the defendants in favor of plaintiff, no part of which has been paid. The answer admits such allegations, and sets up as a defense that plaintiff was a surety on a supersedeas bond given to stay execution of the sentence of two years’ imprisonment and $5,000 fine imposed upon one Rush Meadows after conviction in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California and pending review of said judgment by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Meadows v. United States, 11 Fed. (2d) 718) ; that after said judgment was affirmed said Meadows applied to the trial court for an additional stay of execution of thirty days, which the court refused to grant except upon immediate payment of the $5,000 fine; that defendants contributed $1400, and various other sums were contributed by other friends and relatives, including the plaintiff, Cla Vell; that after said sum of $5,000 had been raised and the fine paid, plaintiff demanded that she be…

Defendants have appealed on the judgment-roll from a judgment against them in plaintiff's favor. The complaint alleges that the action is brought on a promissory note in the sum of $2,250, executed by the defendants in favor of plaintiff, no part of which has been paid. The answer admits such allegations, and sets up as a defense that plaintiff was a surety on a supersedeas bond given to stay execution of the sentence of two years' imprisonment and $5,000 fine imposed upon one Rush Meadows after conviction in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California and pending review of said judgment by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( Meadows v. United States, 11 Fed. (2d) 718); that after said judgment was affirmed said Meadows applied to the trial court for an additional stay of execution of thirty days, which the court refused to grant except upon immediate payment of the $5,000 fine; that defendants contributed $1400, and various other sums were contributed by other friends and relatives, including the plaintiff, Cla Vell; that after said sum of $5,000 had been raised and the fine paid, plaintiff demanded that she be…