Canfield v. Bates (1859) · DecisionDepot

Canfield v. Bates

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1859Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instrument in question substantially complied with statutory bond requirements and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an amendment.

Issues

Whether the instrument constituted a valid bond under the statute.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant an amendment.
Whether the bond was sufficiently approved by the Justice.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The bond, if not technically such, was substantially, a compliance with the statute.”

“The refusal to grant the amendment was matter of discretion, which we do not think proper to interfere with.”

“The bond seems to have been approved by the Justice, and this is sufficient.”

Synopsis

TJndek our statutes, undertakings are on the same footing with bonds.

Where an instrument, purporting to be a bond on appeal, contains words of obligation, and has a scroll opposite the name of one of the two signers, who contemporaneously verify the instrument as their bond, it is the bond of both.

A refusal by the County Court, on appeal from a Justice, to permit an amendment of the complaint, is matter of discretion, and there being no affidavit of materiality, nor any showing of the importance of the amendment, this Court will not interfere.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court— Terry, C. J. concurring.

We think the judgment should be affirmed.

1. The bond, if not technically such, was substantially, a compliance with the statute. Taking all of our statutes together, the obvious design was to put an undertaking on the same footing as a bond. This instrument contains words of obligation, and has a scroll, [l. s.] opposite the name of one of the signers. This is enough when the paper is executed by both, who, contemporaneously, verify the instrument by affidavit, as their bond, to make it the deed of both.

2. The refusal to grant the amendment was matter of discretion, which we do not think proper to interfere with. There was no affidavit of the materiality of the amendment, nor any other showing that it was important.

3. The bond seems to have been approved by the Justice, and

this is sufficient. '

We do not think this a case in which we can review the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Canfield v. Bates

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief