163 P. 695 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1917
This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment against them as sureties upon a bond given by them for the release of an attachment.
In an action against John Olson, Jr., and another, the plaintiff recovered judgment against Olson for $386.35. At the time of its commencement an attachment was duly issued, and to prevent the levy thereof the defendants in the present action executed the undertaking above referred to, which obligated the defendants as follows: "Now, therefore, we the undersigned . . . in consideration of the premises and to prevent the levy of said attachment, do hereby jointly and severally undertake, in the sum of $772.76, and promise to the effect that if the plaintiff shall recover judgment in said action we will pay to the plaintiff upon demand the amount of said judgment." Within a period of four months after the commencement of the attachment suit said Olson was adjudicated a bankrupt by the district court of the United States; and the defendants contend that thereby they were exonerated from the obligation of their bond under the provisions of section 67f of the National Bankruptcy Act [30 Stats. at Large, p. 565, 9 U.S. Comp. Stats. Ann. (1916), sec. 9651, p. 11638, 1 Fed. Stats. Ann. (2d ed.), p. 1130]. *599
The point thus raised has been squarely decided against the contention of the defendants in two cases in this state. In the case of Rosenthal v. Perkins,
In the case of San Francisco Sulphur Co. v. Aetna Co.,
One other point is stated in the brief, but it is not at all discussed, and is without merit. We need not therefore refer to it at length.
The judgment is affirmed.
Lennon, P. J., and Richards, J., concurred. *600