Newell

Newell v. McDonald

Good Law
1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 24·60 Cal. App. 202·212 P. 389
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 21, 1922Civ. No. 3671.California1,299 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Craig, J.

The plaintiff, the sheriff of Kern County, prosecutes this suit against R. McDonald and R. McDonald, Jr., on an indemnity bond executed by these defendants as sureties. The action in connection with which the bond was given was entitled Dormitzer v. F. M. Meigs and Consolidated Chemical Company. Dormitzer has since died and W. G. Sylvester has been appointed administrator of his estate. In that action after an attachment had been procured by the plaintiff on October 2, 1917, one W. S. Meigs filed a third-party claim asserting ownership of the automobile which was the subject of the litigation. The indemnity bond signed by the McDonalds as sureties was to secure the sheriff against liability “from all damages, ex penses, costs and charges, and against all loss and liability, which either said sheriff, his heirs, executors or administrators shall sustain, or, in anywise be put to, for, or by reason of the attachment, seizing, levying, taking or retention by said sheriff in his custody under said attachment of the said property claimed as aforesaid.” In the ease at bar, after a trial, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,880.68 and costs. The main facts were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.