Jackson v. Lebar

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, San Bernardino County.</p> <p>This was an action against the defendants as sureties upon an ' undertaking in an attachment suit brought by one Leahy against the plaintiff. In that suit Leahy attached two thousand dollars in money in bank belonging to the plaintiff herein, and detained it for fifty days, when judgment was rendered against Leahy and in favor of Jackson for costs. The complaint in this action alleged the foregoing facts, and added the following:</p> <p>“ That at the time of the issuing of said attachment this plaintiff was engaged as a trader in sheep, buying the same in San Bernardino County, State of California, and driving them to the Territory of Utah.</p> <p>“ That in conducting said business it was necessary to have on hand at all times large sums of money for the care and defraying the expenses of keeping and driving said sheep to Utah Territory; and plaintiff then had in his possession and belonging to him, which he had purchased for the purpose of driving to Utah Territory, six thousand sheep, and had on hand, deposited in the Bank of San Bernardino, in the Town and County of San Bernardino, State of California, two thousand dollars, which he intended for use in defraying expenses of driving the said sis: thousand head of sheep already purchased to the Territory of Utah, and for the purchase of other sheep, to be driven along at the same time and with the said six thousand head already purchased.</p> <p>“ That said Sheriff, pursuant to said attachment, levied upon said two thousand dollars in said bank, and kent this nlaintiff out of possession or control of the same for the space of fifty days, whereby plaintiff was subjected to great inconvenience and expense to raise money to defray the expense of keeping and caring for the said six thousand sheep already purchased, to wit, the sum of four hundred dollars, and plaintiff was deprived of an opportunity to make a profitable purchase of sheep with a portion of said money so attached, whereby he lost and was damaged in the further sum of four hundred dollars.</p> <p>“ That by reason of said attachment the plaintiff was subjected to great loss of time, to wit, fifty days, and that said time was reasonably worth five hundred dollars, and plaintiff was damaged in that amount by reason of his said loss of time, in consequence of said attachment.</p> <p>“ That plaintiff was damaged by reason of said attachment proceedings in the sum of three hundred dollars for personal expenses, expended necessarily and actually while detained in consequence of said attachment of his said two thousand dollars.</p> <p>“ That plaintiff was damaged in the further sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars—cash expended actually and necessarily as attorney’s fees, in consequence of said attachment of his said two thousand dollars by said David Leahy.</p> <p>“ That plaintiff has been damaged in the further sum of fifteen dollars, in consequence of depreciation in the gold coin value of the said two thousand dollars attached as aforesaid.”</p> <p>The defendants filed a general demurrer, which was overruled and he answered. At the beginning of the trial, upon motion of the defendants, the Court struck out the foregoing paragraphs as irrelevant and redundant, the plaintiff excepting. The case was then dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the sum sued for being less than three hundred dollars. The defendants appealed.</p>