Haynie
S & Q Construction Co. v. Haynie
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Schottky, J.
This is an application by S & Q Construction Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company for a writ of prohibition or supersedeas to prevent enforcement of a money judgment in favor of M. D. Haynie.
S & Q was the contractor on a public construction project for the City of Stockton. Hartford was its surety on a bond furnished in accordance with the provisions of section 4200 et seq. of the Government Code. Haynie was a subcontractor on the project.
Haynie sued S & Q and Hartford to recover the balance allegedly due for work performed. In a separate action S & Q sought damages from Haynie for negligence in connection with a part of the contract not sublet to Haynie. The cases were consolidated for trial and recovery was in favor of Haynie in his action against S & Q and Plartford and also in S & Q’s action against Haynie.
Thereafter S & Q alone appealed from the judgment entered in each action. Hartford did not appeal from the judgment entered against it.
The petition filed in this court does not disclose that S & Q has complied with the provisions of section 942 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring an undertaking to stay execution of a money judgment. Under such…