Curtiss

Curtiss v. Bachman

Bad Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 791·84 Cal. 216·24 P. 379
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 31, 1890No. 12884California804 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

On March 26, 1880, Nettie Gilman instituted an action against Gilbert L. Curtiss, the plaintiff in the present action, and the .¿Etna Life Insurance Company, in order to recover a certain life policy issued by that company to the mother of plaintiff, and assigned by her to him, and also to restrain the company from paying over the money due on the policy to any one but Nettie Gilman, and seeking to have Gilbert L. Curtiss required to assign the policy in question to her.

A temporary restraining order was made by the court upon the execution of a bond by the plaintiff in that action in the sum of five hundred dollars. A motion was *217 made to dissolve this temporary injunction. That motion was denied on the thirtieth day of July, 1880, the court at that same time continuing in force the temporary injunction until the final determination of the case, upon the plaintiff in that action giving a bond for five thousand dollars within five days, which instrument is the one on which the present action is predicated.

The injunction first referred to was dissolved, and judgment for costs given in favor of Gilbert L. Curtiss on April 9, 1885. Thereupon the present action was brought on…

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.