The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-07-24
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FRAUD.
JUDGE HUGHES FINDS IN
FAVOR OF THE ODBERTS.
Decision in the Case Of HI. Z. q,
TrumpJer Against j. p. Cd
bert, Wife and Son.

In Department One of the Superior
Court yesterday Judge Hughes rem
dered his decision in the long-pending
case of Harvey F. G. Trumpler against
j. P. Odbert, Mrs. Odbert and their son,
George Z. Odbert.
The plaintiff brought the action to
set aside a deed made by j. c. Odbert
and his wife Julia NJ, TO their son,
George E. Odbert, on the Goth day of
January, 1891, for about ninety-three
acres Of land situated in Sacramento
County, near the City of Sacramento
on the ground that the said deed was
made for the purpose of hindering, de-
laying and defrauding the plaintiff and
other creditors of said J. P. Colbert.
The defendants interposed three de-
fenses, namely:
First-That the plaintiff had released
Erskine Greer, a joint debtor with the
said defendant, ]. P. Colbert, on the
Indebtedness mentioned in the COM
plant, and that said J. P. Odbert was,
therefore, himself released from said
Indebtedness.
Second-That at the date of the con-
veyance by J. P. Odbert to his son Of
the lands described in the complaint
said J. P Odbert was solvent, and.
therefore, entitled to make such dis
position of said lands as he wished, and
Third-That the defendant, Julia NJ
Colbert, was, at the date of the alleged
fraudulent conveyance and for many
years prior thereto, the equitable owner
of said land, she having paid the pur-
chase price therefor and the title there
to having been taken in the name of
her said husband, J. P Odbert
1t satisfactorily appears from the
testimony, says the court, that on the
18th day of September, 1888, one, A. T.
Cotton, was the duly appointed, quail
fled and acting guardian Of the person
and estate of the plaintiff, who was at
that time a minor; that on said last
named date said A. T. Cotton, J. P.
Colbert and Erskine Greer Ian order of
the Probate Court therefore having
been made requiring such bond) made,
executed and delivered as required by
law, an additional guardians bond on
sale of real estate; thereafter and dur
ing the month of January, 1891, said
guardian absconded and appropriated
TO his own use the money derived from
the sale of the real estate belonging to
the estate of said plaintiff.
Subsequently such proceedings were
had as that on the 1st day of Septem-
Der, 1893, a judgment was duly given,
made and entered in this court in
favor of plaintiff herein and against
the said guardian and his bondsmen
for two thousand four hundred and
eighty dollars and twenty-six cents
CS2. 4S0 go.
The defendant, ]. P. Colbert. has no
property at this time out of which
plaintiffs judgment may be satisfied.
The defenses interposed by the de-
PENDANTS will be considered in the or
der above enumerated:
First-On the 24th day of April, 1894,
and some six months subsequent to the
rendition of a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against the said
guardian and his bondsmen on the
above mentioned bond, the plaintiff ac-
cepted an Endorsed promissory note for
eight hundred seventy seven dollars
and twelve cents ($S77 12) from Frs
kline Greer, and the co-bondsmen of the
defendant, ]. P. Odbert, in full re-
lease and discharge of said Greer from
all liability on account of said bond
and judgment Heretofore obtained
provided in said agreement of release
of said Greer that the same should not
in any manner be construed as a re-
lease of either said Cotton or said J.
p. Odbert.
The defendants contend that this re-
lease of Erskine Greer from any and all
liability on account of said bond and
judgment aforesaid also discharges J.
P. Colbert from liability thereon. l am,
however, unable to agree with the de-
PENDANTS in this contention. Section
1913 of the Civil Code reads as follows:
THE release of one or two or more
joint debtors does not extinguish the
obligations of any of the others, I'M
less they are mere guarantors; nor
does it affect their right to contribution
from him." Civil Code, Section 1919
The Supreme Court in passing on this
identical question said:
''One of several joint debtors is not
discharged from liability by release
to the others; and where it is ex-
pressly agreed that the release shall
not operate in his favor. the liability
continues independent of Section 1913
of the Civil Code" CNorthern Insur-
ance Company VS.. Potter. 63 Cal. 1919
This is the rule in force in all of
the States and is based on the theory
that the debtor released has consented
to the continuance of the liability