Beardsley

Beardsley v. Frame

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 884·85 Cal. 134·24 P. 721
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 31, 1890No. 12199California879 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hayne, J.

This was an action against a constable and the sureties on his official bond for damages for the seizure of certain personal property claimed by the plaintiff as assignee for the benefit of creditors of one Wicktor Ohlson. The defendants had a verdict and judgment, and the plaintiff appeals.

The defendant justified under two writs of execution, one of which was in favor of one Hazletine, and the other of one Hobbs. The proceedings in Hazletine’s suit were ruled out, but the proceedings in the Hobbs suit were admitted, and we think properly so. The objection made to them is, that there was no proof of the judgment. But the justice’s docket, containing a minute of the judgment, was read, and this was sufficient evidence of the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 911, 912.) And if the constable acted under execution upon a valid judgment, it was a sufficient justification, and shows that he was not a trespasser. So far as this action is concerned, therefore, it does not matter that the Hazletine judgment was ruled out.

But it is contended that, at the time the Hobbs judgment was rendered, the judgment debtor had already *135 assigned his property to the plaintiff; and this brings up…

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.