More

More v. Churchill

Caution
155 Cal. 368·1909 Cal. LEXIS 437·101 P. 9
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 23, 1909L.A. No. 2204.California953 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Plaintiff for cause of action set forth the following facts: The defendant Churchill had prosecuted an action against this plaintiff for the recovery of certain personal property or its value, and had recovered judgment that he have and recover from the defendant the possession of the personal property, or its value, $1636.80, with costs of suit. This plaintiff appealed from that judgment, the undertaking upon appeal being given by the defendant, the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed upon appeal, whereupon this plaintiff made tender to defendant Churchill of the personal property, which tender was refused. Thereafter the defendant Churchill pro cured a judgment, upon his ex parte motion, to be given against the defendant, the Fidelity and Guaranty Company, which judgment was voluntarily satisfied by that company. This plaintiff had given to the Fidelity and Guaranty Company an undertaking to indemnify it against loss. He went into the court and moved and procured the vacation of the judgment against the Fidelity and Guaranty Company so obtained upon motion of defendant Churchill, and upon appeal the order so vacating the…

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.