Smith v. Robinson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought on a promissory note against J. A. Robinson, the maker, and J. A. Ledden and S. P. Taylor, indorsers.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought on a promissory note against J. A. Robinson, the maker, and J. A. Ledden and S. P. Taylor, indorsers. Taylor filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint, and setting up as an affirmative defense that he was merely a surety upon the note, that an attachment had been issued in the action and levied upon sufficient property of Robinson to satisfy the debt, and that the plaintiff had released the attachment without his consent. On this…
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
—The finding “that the plaintiff did not at any time release or cause to be released from attachment property of the defendant Robinson,” is not justified by the evidence which shows “that real property sufficient in value of the defendant Robinson had been duly attached to satisfy any judgment which might bo obtained in said action against said Robinson and Taylor ”; and that the sheriff was directed by the attorneys of the plaintiff to release said property of said defendant Robinson from said attachment.
The claim of respondent’s counsel that real property attached as this was can only be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Southwestern Broom & Warehouse Co. v. City National BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Booloodian v. OhanesianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Hall v. DaileyWashington Supreme Court · 1937