Bettandorff

Bettandorff v. Chronister

Good Law
1935 Cal. LEXIS 343·2 Cal. 2d 425·41 P.2d 337
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 1935Sac. No. 4846California2,051 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seawell, J.

For a better understanding of the issues involved in this appeal it is necessary to state briefly the facts which constitute its background. On February 17, 1932, plaintiffs Bettandorffs instituted an action against appellant O. B. Chronister (husband of Erma Chronister, also appellant herein) and E. L. Hill for the recovery of certain moneys alleged to be due upon contract. Upon the filing of the action an attachment was issued, and to prevent the levying of said attachment one Jack Hill and J. E. Brown executed a joint and several undertaking conditioned that if said O. B. Chronister should fail to pay the full amount of whatever sum might be recovered against him, they would *427 pay the same. The case went to judgment on July 21, 1932, in favor of the Bettandorffs and against Chronister and E. L. Hill in the sum of $1147.46 and $40.95 costs. On July 23, 1932, execution was issued against the property of defendants in said judgment and was returned satisfied to the extent of $83.08. An alms execution was issued on November 23, 1932, which was returned partially satisfied to the extent of $220.35, leaving an unpaid balance on said judgment in the sum of $884.98 with interest…

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.