Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Cal. 175

Osborn v. Hendrickson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856

California Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

Action for rents and profits brought on the appeal bond given by the defendant, in an action brought by the plaintiff for restitution of the premises, before a justice of the peace. The finding of the Court below establishes that the appeal, taken from the judgment for restitution entered by the justice, was dismissed by consent of the parties plaintiff and defendant, pending its appeal, and before final judgment on appeal, and before the commencement of this action.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1925

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

2018561860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

¶1Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

¶2This was an action in the Court below, upon an appeal bond, to recover rent accruing pending the appeal. Some two months after the judgment was recovered in the magistrate’s Court, and pending the appeal to the County Court, the plaintiff transferred the judgment to a third party, and sold the ¡premises in controversy to the defendants. The appeal was afterwards withdrawn or dismissed by an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants, without having been called to a final hearing. Upon this state of facts, it is clear, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover upon the bond, and his remedy (if he have any) is against Hendrickson for use and occupation.

¶3The obligation of the sureties was to pay all costs, damages and rents accruing, pending the appeal, and to abide the order of the Court therein. In other words, they undertook to become liable for the defendant upon a confirmation of the judgment in the appellate Court. A withdrawal *176of an appeal, and settlement of the suit, by consent of plaintiff and defendant, is not an affirmance of the judgment of the Court below.

¶4It is true that the dismissal of the cause by the appellant, or a judgment of dismissal, for want of prosecution, would not release the bail or sureties, for this would he a fraud on the respondent; but a voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by both parties, and an adjustment of the controversy, terminates the suit, and the bond falls with it.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/6/cal/175 · .json · Public domain