Heath v. Lent
| Decision Date | 01 April 1851 |
| Citation | 1 Cal. 410 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | HEATH ET AL. v. LENT (Administrator, &c), ET AL. |
APPEAL from the District Court of the County of San Joaquin. All the material facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
William Smith, for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Perley, for Defendants.
By the Court, HASTINGS, Ch. J. The respondents brought this action on an attachment bond executed by Belt & Owens, as principals, and B. S. Knapp, deceased, as surety. Administration was had of the estate of Knapp, by the Public Administrator, who was made a party defendant. Afterwards, Lent, having been duly appointed Administrator, was substituted for the Public Administrator, as a defendant. The respondents recovered a judgment against the defendants for the sum of three thousand dollars, a verdict having been rendered for that amount by a jury. A motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial was overruled. The record contains the testimony as taken by the Clerk, most of which was illegal, and should not have been permitted to go to the jury. The property attached was real estate. The possession of the owner of the property was not disturbed, and it is difficult to perceive how any thing further than nominal damages can be recovered for the injury caused by the attachment, as no damages could have accrued, except for the injury of which the writ of attachment was the direct and proximate cause. The cases cited by counsel, from 25 Wendell, p. 383, and 3 Denio, p. 246, support this position, and, if correct, it would follow that the damages were excessive. The signature of Knapp to the attachment bond should have been proved. The statute provides, that when a complaint or answer is founded on an instrument in writing, which is alleged to have been signed by the party, the signature shall be considered as admitted, unless denied by such party on oath. The party to be charged was the representative of the estate of the person whose signature appears on the bond. He had not signed the instrument, and could not deny upon oath its execution by the deceased. It is clear that the statute does not extend to any other parties than those who are alleged to have signed the instrument. Such parties are supposed to know the genuineness of their own signatures, but it would be unreasonable to suppose that the representatives of a deceased party possess the same knowledge.
All the testimony in regard to the depreciation of real estate during the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettengill v. Blackman
... ... ( Myers v. Sierra ... Valley etc. Assn., 122 Cal. 669, 55 P. 689; 3 Thompson ... on Corp., 2d ed., p. 1225; Heath v. Lent, 1 Cal ... 410, 411; Marx v. Raley & Co., 6 Cal.App. 479, 92 P. 519.) ... The ... case of Cox v. Northwestern Stage Co., 1 ... ...
-
Java Cocoanut Oil Co., Ltd. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
...Sup.Ct. 582, 47 L.Ed. 744. But it seems to be conceded that there is no controlling decision by the Supreme Court of the state. In Heath v. Lent, 1 Cal. 410, it was that counsel fees paid out by the attachment debtor in defense of the suit commenced by the writ of attachment, over and above......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. v. J & D Painting
...One case in which it is clear that the court is talking about a general market decline during a period of attachment is Heath v. Lent (1851) 1 Cal. 410, which rejected plaintiff's contention that the difference in value be awarded: "All the testimony in regard to the depreciation of real es......
-
Palmer v. Breed
...procedure where there are several counts in the complaint, and one or more be insufficient, is to demur to each of such counts separately. Id. In the first count it charged that the defendant (the appellee here) sued the plaintiff (appellant here) for $ 702.13, and caused a writ of attachme......