Ex parte Lamson

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““On the llih day oí JIarch, 1871, a. judgment was rendered in the district court ol the Fifteenth judicial district, in favor of A. M. Burns, against the petitioner, in a civil action, for the sum of $15/104.94, and convicting him of fraud. On the 3d day of August, 1875, the petitioner was arrested on an execution issued on the judgment, and imprisoned in the jail in San Francisco. About one week after the petitioner had been imprisoned, the attorney for the plaintiff called on the deputy sheriff, and tendered him twenty dollars to pay the expense of keeping the prisoner; but he said he was busy, and could not receive the money then, and Pierson replied dial he could have the money at any time. On the lGth of September following, Pierson paid the sheriff for the support of the petitioner, from the time of his arrest to the 24th of September. On the 23d of September, the petitioner applied to the supreme court for his discharge on habeas corpus. “By the court: The 1154th section of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff in execution, who has caused the defendant to be arrested in a civil action, to advance to the jailor moneys sufficient for the support of the defendant while in jail, for one week, and also to make a similar weekly advance for the same purpose during the imprisonment, and provides that, in case of the failure of the plaintiff to do so, the defendant must be discharged from custody by the jailer. The ¡failure upon the part of the plaintiff to comply”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Stroheim v. Deimel