From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holmes v. Ohm

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1863
23 Cal. 268 (Cal. 1863)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

         COUNSEL:

         John Reynolds, for Appellant.

          W. W. Chipman, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Norton, J. concurring.

         OPINION

          CROCKER, Judge

         This is an action upon an undertaking on appeal. The defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not aver any delivery. The complaint avers that the defendants executed the undertaking sued on, copying the same in full into the complaint, with the indorsement thereon, showing that the undertaking was filed in the Clerk's office on the twenty-seventh day of March, 1862. This is clearly sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover thereon. These undertakings are not required by the statute to be delivered to the obligee when executed, but to be filed in the Clerk's office, for the use and benefit of the parties entitled to them.

         The judgment is therefore affirmed.


Summaries of

Holmes v. Ohm

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1863
23 Cal. 268 (Cal. 1863)
Case details for

Holmes v. Ohm

Case Details

Full title:HOLMES v. OHM et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1863

Citations

23 Cal. 268 (Cal. 1863)

Citing Cases

Michalitschke Brothers & Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co.

(Missouri P. R. R. Co. v. Wichita etc. Co ., 55 Kan. 525; Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Ditmars, 3 Kan. App.…

Jenne v. Burger

The law is well settled that a receipt is prima facie evidence of the facts recited in it, but is not…