Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Cal. 632

Tevis v. Randall

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856

California Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

This was an action against the defendant Randall, a notary public, and his sureties on his official bond, for damages for neglect of an official duty. The case was tried before the Court, a jury being waived, and the finding of the Court below establishes the following facts : The plaintiff was the holder and owner of a promissory note by endorsement. On the day of its maturity the plaintiff gave the note to the defendant, Randall, for protest.

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 November 1964

5 state decisions

10185618601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

¶21. The first assignment of error is that the bond is payable to The People of the State of California,” whereas it is insisted the Act requires it to be made payable to The State of California.” All that is requisite to constitute a good bond on this point, is that it should have a certain obligee, so there be no mistake as to the one to whom the service or duty is owing. Either of the names is descriptive of the same sovereignty, and may be indifferently used, as they are in various statutes.

¶32. Another objection is as to the form of the condition which requires the notary faithfully to perform the duties of his office.

¶4The Act concerning notaries prescribes no condition for the bond, but it declares he shall be liable on his bond for any misconduct or neglect of duty. It follows that the only condition that could be inserted in the bond is the faithful performance of duty.

¶53. It is objected that the bond is in form joint, and not joint and several, as the law provides it shall be. But this matter of form was designed more fully to protect the State or those claiming under, and was an additional burden on the obligees, of the lack of which it does not seem right that the obligors should complain. But the 11th section of the Act concerning the bonds of officers, provides against the invalidity of the bond, even where it does not contain the substantial matter required by law. And the right to recover upon such bonds is not limited to any particular class of cases, but is co-extensive with the right to recover upon a regular statutory bond.

¶64. It is urged that the giving notice is not a notarial duty, and therefore, the failure of the defendant Randall to do so, is no breach of the condition of the bond.

¶7At common law, promissory notes were not protestable securities; they are made so by our Act, and as a consequence, the protest of them must be attended with all the incidents belonging to foreign bills of exchange.

¶8*636The recital of “ notice given in the protest, is made evidence of the fact of notice; the notary is provided with a fee bill for giving- notice; in the face of these enactments it would be difficult to maintain that giving notice was not one of the official duties of the notary.

¶9Judgment affirmed.

/6/cal/632 · .json · Public domain