5 Cal. 419
Decided July 1, 1855
California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01
<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County.</p> <p>This was an action brought upon the official bond of the defendant, Cornwall, who was a Notary Public in San Francisco.</p> <p>The complaint'sets out the bond, which was conditioned for the legal performance of the duties of Cornwall, as Notary, and was made payable to the State of California,</p> <p>The bond, or instrument, was approved by the County Judge, and filed in the office of the County Clerk, and upon the back of the bond, the Judge had endorsed his certificate, that the defendant, Cornwall, had taken the oath of office of a Notary Public.</p> <p>The complaint alleges the breach of the bond, and states the facts of such breach, and claims damages to the amount of $5,000.</p> <p>The bond was duly signed by all of the defendants, but no seals were attached to the instrument, or set opposite to their names.</p> <p>The provisions of the statute relative to official bonds, will be found in the argument of appellant.</p> <p>Pearson demurred to the complaint, on the ground that the bond was unsealed. The Conrfc sustained the demurrer, and plaintiff appealed.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1936
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1855-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Murray, C. J., concurred.
¶2The instrument upon which suit is brought, is not under seal, and is therefoz’e nob the character of security which is required by the statute to be given by Notaries Public.
¶3If it be considered as a good contract at common law, yet as it is payable to the State, and not assigned to the plaintiff, the latter has no right of action in his own name.
¶4Judgment affirmed.