White v. Fratt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District. For facts see opinion. The Court below decreed that defendants, Schwartz & Rosier, and Stanford, pay to Wood, according to the prayer of the bill, their proportionate share of the balance due on Wood’s judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District. For facts see opinion. The Court below decreed that defendants, Schwartz & Rosier, and Stanford, pay to Wood, according to the prayer of the bill, their proportionate share of the balance due on Wood’s judgment. Schwartz & Hosier having already paid one thousand five hundred and thirty-two dollars, there was due Wood one thousand six hundred and thirty-one dollars and sixty-one cents; and of this sum the Court decreed Stanford should pay one thousand and twenty-three dollars and thirty-one cents, and S. & B. one hundred and seven dollars. Stanford alone appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Terry, C. J. concurring.
This was a bill, filed by the plaintiff, in which he avers that he was Sheriff of Sacramento County, on the 8th September, 1857. That, on that day, Schwartz & Bosler sued out an attachment, against Bullard & Son, for six hundred and twenty-four dollars, and placed it in the hands of plaintiff, as Sheriff; and that on the 10th September, 1857, defendant, Stanford, put in plaintiff’s hands an attachment against the same Bullard & Son, for three hundred and seventy-two dollars; that the Sheriff executed these writs in their order of precedence as to time; when defendant,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Churchill v. HuntNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Mooers v. WhiteNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
- In re NegusNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Chamberlain v. BlueIndiana Supreme Court · 1843
3Cited by5 opinions
- American Surety Co. of New York v. BlakeIdaho Supreme Court · 1933
- Roman Catholic Archbishop v. ShipmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Ketchum v. CrippenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Josephian v. LionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Sherwood v. WallinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905