High

High v. Bank of Commerce

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 834·95 Cal. 386·30 P. 556
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 23, 1892No. 14642California1,087 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

The plaintiff became the assignee of a judgment obtained by one Keturah White against N. A. Comstock and Carl Trotsche and W. E. High. He brought this action against the defendant here, as garnishee of Comstock and Trotsche, in proceedings supplemental to execution, under the provisions of the Code . of Civil Procedure contained in sections 716 to 720, in- . elusive.

A demurrer to the complaint was filed by the defendant, to the effect that the pleading in question did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff declining to amend the complaint, judgment was rendered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal

*387 The first contention of the respondent which, we will notice is that in which he asserts that section 720 of the Code of Civil Procedure is unconstitutional. He bases this view of the matter upon a decision of the appellate court in Bryant v. Bank of California, 8 Pac. Rep. 644, where it is said by Mr. Justice Myrick: “ Inasmuch as no notice to the judgment debtor of the proceeding authorized by section 720 of the Code of Civil Procedure is provided for, we are of opinion that that…

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.