From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stechhan v. Roraback

Supreme Court of California
May 15, 1885
67 Cal. 29 (Cal. 1885)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         The appeal to the Superior Court suspended the judgment of the Justice's Court for all purposes. (Knowles v. Inches , 12 Cal. 213; Woodbury v. Bowman , 13 Cal. 635; People v. Frisbie , 26 Cal. 135; People v. Treadwell , 66 Cal. 400; McGarrahan v. Maxwell , 28 Cal. 91; McGarrahan v. New Idra Mining Co. 49 Cal. 331; Thornton v. Mahoney , 24 Cal. 569.) The present action having been commenced pending such appeal, was prematurely brought. (United States v. Pacheco, 20 How. 263; Freeman on Judgments, § 328; Bryne v. Prather, 13 La. An. 653; Clark v. Clayton , 61 Cal. 634; Dougherty v. Dore , 63 Cal. 170.)

         W. H. Allen, P. B. Ladd, and J. W. Harding, for Appellants.

          Baggett & Platt, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         THE COURT          The defendant Roraback commenced an action against Stechhan in a Justice's Court, and procured an order for his arrest. In procuring such order Stechhan gave an undertaking, with the other defendants herein as sureties. On the trial of the action, the justice held the arrest to have been wrongful and without cause, and discharged Stechhan. This action is on the undertaking. The defendants herein in their answer averred that after the judgment in the Justice's Court, Roraback, plaintiff therein, appealed from such judgment to the Superior Court, and that such appeal was still untried and undetermined. This portion of the answer was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained. We are of opinion that this ruling was error. On the appeal the whole case was for hearing and determination, including the question whether or not the arrest was wrongful or without sufficient cause; and until such determination it could not be known whether liability on the undertaking had been incurred.

         Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to overrule plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's answer in the particular above noted. The demurrer was properly sustained as to the other ground therein stated.


Summaries of

Stechhan v. Roraback

Supreme Court of California
May 15, 1885
67 Cal. 29 (Cal. 1885)
Case details for

Stechhan v. Roraback

Case Details

Full title:F. W. STECHHAN, Respondent, v. FRANK RORABACK et al, Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: May 15, 1885

Citations

67 Cal. 29 (Cal. 1885)
7 P. 7

Citing Cases

Zodiac 21, Inc. v. Oyo Hotels, Inc.

Fourth, and finally, Trident alleges that, after Zodiac and Trident cancelled their respective contracts, Oyo…

Woodrow v. Cnty. of Merced

In May 2013, Plaintiff alleges Officer B and Anna Hazel arrested Plaintiff pursuant to a warrant which he was…