Hayward Lumber & Investment Co. v. Biscailuz
California Supreme Court
1DissentCarter, J.
I dissent.
The majority opinion concludes that there can be no liability imposed upon the sheriff and his deputy because there was no breach of official duty by the deputy by reason of his unauthorized order releasing the garnisheed account. It is submitted that this conclusion is erroneous and without support in the authorities cited in the majority opinion.
First, the cases which are cited for the proposition that a sheriff is justified in relying upon a court order if the latter is “valid on its face” have no bearing under the instant circumstances. In each of those cases, the officer…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Vallindras v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Sarafini v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Reynolds v. LermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- First National Bank of Marysville v. McCoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Sanford v. BoringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.