Jennings v. Polack
Before: Currey, Rhodes, Sawyer, Shafter
Synopsis
APPEAL from Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County.
SHAFTER, J. The complaint states that on the 18th of October, 1854, an injunction issued in Polack et al. v. Jennings et al. and was duly served on the defendants in that suit. That upon the issuing of the injunction an undertaking was [203]filed signed, by L. Franklin and T. Tennent. That on the 12th of May, 1855, it was “ordered that the injunction herein be and the same is hereby dissolved, unless the plaintiffs within ten days file a bond with good "and sufficient sureties in the sum of $15,000.” That on the 21st of said month a new undertaking was filed signed by Franklin, Tennent and one Ford, in formal compliance with the order, and that the same was excepted to for insufficiency on the same day. That afterward, on the 31st of May, 1855, a new undertaking was filed in lieu of that last above named, wherein Polack was principal and the said Franklin and Tennent were sureties, in the words and figures following, to wit:
“In the District Court of Fourth Judicial District, State of . California.
“Joel S. Polack et als. vs.
Thomas H. Dowling et als.
“UNDERTAKING ON INJUNCTION.
“Whereas, the above-named plaintiffs have commenced an action, in the District Court of the F-ourth Judicial District against the above-named defendants, and have applied for an injunction in said action against the said defendants, enjoining and restraining them from the commission of certain acts as in the complaint filed in this action is more particularly set forth and described.
“Now, therefore, we, the undersigned, residents of the City of San Francisco, in consideration of the premises and of the issuing of said injunction, do severally and jointly undertake, in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, and promise to the effect that in case said injunction shall issue, the said plaintiffs will pay to the said parties enjoined such damages not exceeding the sum of fifteen thousand dollars as the said parties shall sustain by reason, of the said injunction, if the said District Court finally decides that the said plaintiffs were not entitled thereto.
“Dated San Francisco, this 30th day of May, A. D. 1855.
“(Signed) J. S. POLACK.
“LUMLEY FRANKLIN,
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)