Rudolph

Rudolph v. Saunders

Good Law
111 Cal. 233·1896 Cal. LEXIS 569·43 P. 619
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 1896No. 10379California882 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This action is brought by the plaintiffs, as copartners, to recover from the defendant, as constable of township 5, county of Santa Barbara, five bun-. dred and twenty-one dollars and fifteen cents, and interest, on account of certain beans levied upon by him under and by virtue of execution.

*234 Plaintiffs had judgment for six hundred and one dollars and sixty cents, interest and costs, from which judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

One James S. McBride was indebted to plaintiffs upon a promissory note in the sum of five hundred and twenty-one dollars and fifteen cents, with interest at twelve per cent per annum from the date thereof, viz., from June 8, 1893, and secured by a chattel mortgage executed by said McBride, under date of June 8, 1893,. and duly recorded June 12, 1893.

On the tenth day of June, 1893, a writ of attachment duly issued out of justice court, in an action therein pending against said mortgagor James S. McBride, which writ of attachment was placed in the hands of the defendant as constable for service, and was by him on said tenth day of June, 1893, either levied or attempted to be levied upon the same property…

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.