Legal Opinion

Tay, Brooks & Backus v. Hawley

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870No. 1,997PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth District, City and County of San Francisco. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, C. J.

The plaintiffs sued Hawley & Shiverick, and the process having been served only upon Hawley, they recovered a judgment, which, after reciting that Shiverick had not been served with process, adjudged that plaintiffs recover of both of the defendants the sum of money therein mentioned, and that the plaintiffs have execution against the joint property of both defendants, and the separate property of Hawley. The present action was brought upon that judgment, against Hawley alone. The defendant, in his answer, sets up the non-joinder of Shiverick, alleging that the judgment sued upon is a joint…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jackson ex dem. Simmons v. ChaseNew York Supreme Court · 1806
  2. Mervin & Goldsmith v. KumbelNew York Supreme Court · 1840
  3. Mason & Hale v. Denison & DenisonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
  4. People v. FrisbieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  5. Sterne v. BentleyNew York Supreme Court · 1848

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Jardine v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Holt Manufacturing Co. v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Melander v. Western National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  4. Davidson v. KnoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co.California Supreme Court · 1932

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API