Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 Cal. 56

Robinett v. Connolly

California Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1888

California Supreme Court · decided 1888-05-01

The action was brought to recover the possession of certain property which had been taken possession of by the defendant, as sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, under a writ of attachment, issued in a certain action entitled Shain v. Robinett.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-05-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1967

2 district · 3 state decisions

30188818901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

McKinstry, J.

¶1The plaintiff, in the action Shain v. Robinett, could not require of the sheriff (defendant herein) to release the property by that officer attached *57therein, except upon payment of his keeper’s fees. (Stats. 1871-72, p. 778.) Shain did not pretend to direct the sheriff to release the attachment, except on the condition which the law attaches to every direction to release an attachment.

¶2Eobinett would have acquired no right to demand possession of the property from the sheriff by virtue of his settlement with Shain, had that settlement not provided for the payment of the keeper’s fees. But it was part of the agreement of settlement that Eobinett should pay the sheriff’s fees. The sheriff may refuse to perform official work in advance unless his fees are paid, but (though he has not demanded them in advance), the statute continues his lien for keeper’s fees until they are paid.

¶3Judgment and order affirmed.

¶4Paterson, J., and Searls, C. J., concurred.

¶5Hearing in Bank denied.

/76/cal/56 · .json · Public domain