People v. Chisholm
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of Yolo. The State of California, on the twenty-eighth of December, 1854, recovered judgment in the Court below against Alex. Chisholm and his sureties, Van Arnam, Tufts, Myriclc, and "Webb, for the sum of one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty-nine cents.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of Yolo. The State of California, on the twenty-eighth of December, 1854, recovered judgment in the Court below against Alex. Chisholm and his sureties, Van Arnam, Tufts, Myriclc, and "Webb, for the sum of one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty-nine cents. On the twenty-seventh of March, 1855, A. Chisholm, A. 3. Chisholm, and 0. Chisholm, mortgaged a farm in Yolo county to the State of California, for the purpose of securing the payment of the judgment aforesaid. This was an action to foreclose the…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
The levy upon the property of Van Arnam was a satisfaction of the original judgment against Alexander Chisholm and his sureties. “ A levy under an execution on property sufficient to satisfy the same, is a satisfaction of the judgment.” Mickles v. Haskin, 11 Wendell. The mortgage sought to be foreclosed being given as a security for the judgment, and therefore a mere incident, must fall with it. This consequence cannot be avoided by the act of 1856, releasing Van Arnam from all liability as surety of Alexander Chisholm.
The voluntary release of the property, by the plaintiff in execution,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lindley v. KelleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Mulford v. EstudilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863