Morgan v. Thrift
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District for Sutter County. The complaint sets forth, that Thrift with others, on the 11th of June, 1851, sued out a writ of injunction against plaintiffs, and that said Thrift and Fairchild, defendants, executed a bond in the sum of $500, whereby they bound themselves to pay to said plaintiffs, known in said bond as Morgan, John Roe,
and Richard Roe, their proper names being unknown, as they allege, to said defendants, such damages as said plaintiffs should sustain, by reason of said injunction, &c.; that, by the decision of the Court, defendants were rendered liable on their said bond, &c. A copy of the bond referred to, was annexed to the complaint. The answer of the defendants denies the allegations of the complaint, and the execution of the bond, as therein set forth, but admits the execution of the paper annexed to said complaint.
On the 26th of April, 1852, upon motion of defendants’ attorney, the Court granted a nonsuit, on the ground, that the names of the plaintiffs in the cause do not correspond with the names of the obligees, as set forth in the bond, upon which the action was brought.
Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Heydenfeldt, Justice. The Practice Act permits a party defendant, whose name is unknown, to be sued by any name. It follows, as a consequence, that where a bond has to be executed by the plaintiff, and is executed to the defendant by a wrong name, the latter has his remedy on such bond, and may describe it as given to him. And in such a case he may show by the record of the suit in which the bond was given, and by extraneous facts, that he was the person intended as the obligee.
In this case the record discloses that the parties were at trial; that the bond on which the suit was brought was excluded by the Court; and that on the motion of the defendant, a nonsuit was ordered. Now, although it is not explicitly stated, that the non-[564]suit was granted on any particular ground, it is yet an undeniable inference, that it resulted from the opinion of the Court below, holding the bond inadmissible, because it was not made to the parties plaintiff, by their proper names. This, as appears from what we have above declared, was erroneous.
The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the case remanded.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)