Seawell v. Cohn
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the Ninth Ju dicial District, Esmeralda County, Hon. S. II. Chase presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. The appellant was only a surety or guarantor. The bond given should be held merely as a statutory undertaking to release property under attachment. (Parsons on Contracts, Vol.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the Ninth Ju dicial District, Esmeralda County, Hon. S. II. Chase presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. The appellant was only a surety or guarantor. The bond given should be held merely as a statutory undertaking to release property under attachment. (Parsons on Contracts, Vol. II, pp. 67-8; McWilliams v. Dana, 18 Cal. 339.) The answer does not show that the execution was stayed by the stipulation between attorneys entered into when judgment was rendered. The fact, not being stated in the answer, cannot otherwise be made available.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beatty, J., full Bench concurring.
In the spring of 1864, J. A. Brimhall brought suit against the Durand Mill & Mining Company for $850, and sued out a writ of attachment, which was levied on the goods of defendant.
To procure the release of these goods, D. Cohn and Solomon Ashim ■ executed an undertaking which, after reciting the attachment, etc., concludes as follows:
“ Now, therefore, we, the undersigned, do hereby undertake, jointly and severally, in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the effect that we will, on demand, pay to the plaintiff the amount of any judgment that may be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Palmer v. VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. FargoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Quillen v. QuigleyNevada Supreme Court · 1879
- Scott v. Justice's Court of Tahoe TownshipNevada Supreme Court · 1968
- Scott v. Justice's Court of Tahoe TownshipNevada Supreme Court · 1968