Hubert v. Mendheim
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The complaint contained three counts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The complaint contained three counts. It was alleged in the first count that the plaintiff was treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, from the 6th day of December, 1875, continuously, and by successive elections in pursuance of law, until the date of the commencement of the action, September 24, 1879-; that in pursuance of law he appointed one William Cassebohm, chief deputy in his office, and required of him a bond in the sum of fifty thousand dollars; that on the 9th day of December, 1875, a…
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
The objection taken under the demurrer to the third cause of action as stated in the complaint is that the bond therein mentioned is not an official bond, and is therefore void; the objection to the first and second counts is that they do not allege moneys to have been misappropriated by Gassebohm, deputy, during the term for which he was appointed deputy— it being averred that plaintiff was treasurer for more than one term.
It is not necessary to decide that the bond is good as a com*217mon-law obligation. It is proper to observe, however, that it is by no means a corollary from the proposition…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Williams v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- People v. AikenheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Brown v. LattimoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by27 opinions
- Fernelius v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Kristin Perry v. Arnold SchwarzeneggerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of TulareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- In re GuerreroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- State Ex Rel. James v. AronsonMontana Supreme Court · 1957
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.