Goldberg

This is an action upon a joint and several bond given to release certain property from an attachment. The conditions of the undertaking were such that in order to maintain the action against appellant it was necessary for the plaintiff to demand of the principal in the bond the redelivery of the attached property and to demand of the sureties the payment of the amount of the judgment in the original action. It was necessary also to allege such demands.

In lieu of an allegation of the demand for the redelivery of the property the plaintiff alleged: “That on the 5th day of March, 1925, an execution was issued the sheriff of said Los Angeles County, against the property of the said A. Rempp (the principal) under said judgment, but that the sheriff made return on the 6th day of June, 1925, that no property was found and that writ of execution is wholly unsatisfied. ’ ’

The facts as stated constitute a sufficient demand for the redelivery of the attached property. (Hammond v. Starr, 79 Cal. 556 [ 21 Pac. 971 ]; 3 Cal. Jur., p. 520.) And the allegation of the facts was a sufficient allegation of the demand for the purpose of sustaining the judgment on appeal. No stereotyped form of…