Early v. Town of Redwood City
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment, in the Twelfth District Court, County of San Mateo. Daingerfield, J This is an action to enjoin the defendant, the town of Eedwood City, from paying certain water-works bonds to the defendant John Caddy, and to determine the right of the plaintiff to said bonds.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment, in the Twelfth District Court, County of San Mateo. Daingerfield, J This is an action to enjoin the defendant, the town of Eedwood City, from paying certain water-works bonds to the defendant John Caddy, and to determine the right of the plaintiff to said bonds. The plaintiff claimed the bonds under an attachment in an action against Caddy, levied by serving a notice of garnishment upon the town of Eedwood City on May 16th, 1877, and under a subsequent sale of the same by the sheriff in said action. The work mentioned in the opinion was completed on June 11th, 1877.…
1Opinion of the Court
McKinstry, J.:
It is urged by appellant, that the assignment from John Caddy to intervenors does not include the three bonds of defendant alleged to have been seized, under a writ of attachment, by appellant. The assignment is in words and figures following:
“ Redwood City, May 23rd, 1877.
“ For value received, I have sold and assigned, and do hereby transfer, to B. F. Baker and Dunham, Carrigan & Co. all my right, title, and interest in the bonds of the town of Redwood City, known as the water-works bonds, except so much of the proceeds of the sale of said bonds as is required to repay to the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Maier v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Brainard v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Brunskill v. StutmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Clecak v. DunnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Aigeltinger Co. v. Healy-Tibbitts Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.