Chambers v. Waters

Decided July 1, 1857

California Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

The plaintiffs levied an execution upon certain goods and chattels, as the property of Pierce and Anderson, and while the property was in the possession of Hill, an officer, the defendant, Waters brought a suit to recover the possession of the same, and executed an undertaking, with the other defendants as sureties, conditioned that the said Waters should prosecute the replevin suit with effect, and make return of the property, if return thereof should be adjudged to said…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1912

5 state decisions

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 →

Burnett, J.,

¶1after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Murray, C. J., concurring.

¶2Most of the points arising in this case were settled by this Court in the case of Mickerson v. Chatterton and others. In the case between Waters and Hill, if the latter intended to hold Waters and her sureties responsible upon the undertaking, either for a return of the property or its value, he should have claimed a return of the property, and taken his judgment accordingly. *391Having failed to do this, the payment of the judgment, as taken, is a complete discharge of the defendant, Waters, and her sureties upon the undertaking. As to whether she could be made liable individually for a return of the property, it is unnecessary to determine.

¶3The judgment of the Court below is therefore reversed, and the suit dismissed, with costs.