Legal Opinion

Newell v. McDonald

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 21, 1922No. Civ. No. 3671PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

The plaintiff, the sheriff of Kern County, prosecutes this suit against R. McDonald and R. McDonald, Jr., on an indemnity bond executed by these defendants as sureties. The action in connection with which the bond was given was entitled Dormitzer v. F. M. Meigs and Consolidated Chemical Company. Dormitzer has since died and W. G. Sylvester has been appointed administrator of his estate. In that action after an attachment had been procured by the plaintiff on October 2, 1917, one W. S. Meigs filed a third-party claim asserting ownership of the automobile which was the subject of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Perrin v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Robinett v. ConnollyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Tunstead v. NixdorfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ross v. O'BRIENCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  2. Bentinck v. MenottiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. In re Midwest Livestock Commission Co.District Court, D. Nevada · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API