Kellogg

Kellogg v. Howes

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 607·93 Cal. 586·29 P. 230
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1892No. 14543California717 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

The judgment in the case of Kellogg v. Howes was affirmed here in November, 1889. ( 81 Cal. 170 .) Howes, the appellant therein, .procured a writ of error to the supreme court of the United States, and gave a supersedeas bond in the sum of eight thousand dollars, with respondents Bonebrake and Bryson as sureties. The condition of the bond is, that “ if the above-named F. C. Howes shall prosecute his said writ of error with effect, and answer all costs and damages if he shall fail to make good his plea, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise,” etc. A citation was issued requiring the defendants in error to show cause before the supreme court at Washington on the second Monday in October, 1890, why the judgment should not be corrected. On May 22,1890, said court, upon motion of defendants in error, dismissed the writ, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the action. The *587 clerk of the supreme court of the United States attached to the mandate dismissing the writ a memorandum of costs, including the cost of. printing the transcript, amounting to $160.50; and as soon as the mandate was filed here, Howes paid the amount of the judgment, with interest thereon,…

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.