People v. Buster
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Sonoma. A statement of the facts appears in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
The only serious question urged by respondents, as we understand, is to this effect: “ That a discharge of one surety operated as a discharge of the whole.”
In answer to which we say:
1st. That the discharge in the outset was void, because made by a Judicial officer, when the act was merely ministerial; and
2d. That the bonds given subsequent to the first were merely cumulative, and were the voluntary acts of defendants, made for the benefit of plaintiff, and not the sureties upon the original instrument or instruments.
The sections of the Act under which the proceedings of the pretended…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Corbin v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Bouchaud v. DiasNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Rowley v. StoddardNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- State ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. PolkeIndiana Supreme Court · 1844
3Cited by20 opinions
- Pierce v. WhitingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- People v. Citizens National Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Williams v. ReedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Spencer v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Carter v. MulreinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.