22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T414,Martin, in appealing to this court from the judgment rendered against him, filed an undertaking with Dager and Hill as sureties. The judgment was affirmed, and on the going down of the remittitur the plaintiff moved, under section 942, Code of Civil Procedure, for judgment against the sureties. Hotice of the motion was served on Dager only. The court entered judgment against him alone. "We think that it was error to render judgment under that section against one of the sureties only, no reason appearing why the other was not joined, except that he could not be found and served with notice. The section provides for a judgment “ against the sureties ”; and this being a statutory proceeding, the course pointed out by the statute must be strictly pursued. The terms of the bond did not, if it could have done so, authorize a variation from the provision of the statute; it authorized the entry of judgment “against the undersigned sureties.” Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings. Hearing in Bank denied.24:T42a,

Martin, in appealing to this court from the judgment rendered against him, filed an undertaking with Dager and Hill as sureties. The judgment was affirmed, and on the going down of the remittitur the plaintiff moved, under section 942, Code of Civil Procedure, for judgment against the sureties. Hotice of the motion was served on Dager only. The court entered judgment against him alone.

"We think that it was error to render judgment under that section against one of the sureties only, no reason appearing why the other was not joined, except that he could not be found and served with notice. The section provides for a judgment “ against the sureties ”; and this being a statutory proceeding, the course pointed out by the statute must be strictly pursued. The terms of the bond did not, if it could have done so, authorize a variation from the provision of the statute; it authorized the entry of judgment “against the undersigned sureties.”

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Hearing in Bank denied.

25:T40d,

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

The plaintiff, several years ago, recovered a judgment against Lewis Martin for one thousand two hundred and twenty-seven dollars and costs. Martin appealed and filed an undertaking to stay execution as provided by the statute, with J. W. Hager and John T. Hill as sureties.

The judgment was affirmed, and upon the coming down of the remittitur the plaintiff moved the court upon affidavits setting out the above facts, for an order that J. W. Hager and John T. Hill appear and show cause why judgment should not be entered against them as sureties for the amount of the judgment recovered against Martin. Hager moved to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that Hill had not appeared to answer the order, nor had he been served with notice. The court found that there had been an unsuccessful attempt to serve Hill, denied the motion, and after a trial upon an answer setting up several defenses rendered judgment against Hager.