Case Name: MOKELUMNE HILL CANAL AND MINING COMPANY v. WOODBURY
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1858
Citations: 10 Cal. 188
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOKELUMNE HILL CANAL AND MINING COMPANY v. WOODBURY.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
MOKELUMNE HILL CANAL AND MINING COMPANY v. WOODBURY.
Where the appellant, on an appeal pending from the District Court to the Supreme Court, filed in the clerk's office of the District Court his notice of appeal and undertaking, and the respondent, within the time allowed by law, excepted to the sufficiency of the sureties to the undertaking, and they failed to justify to the satisfaction of the clerk of said Court, who issued execution on said judgment; Held, that it was error in the Judge of said Court to make an order of supersedeas, staying said execution.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Calaveras.
The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
Shafter, Park & Heydenfeldt, for Appellant.
The District Judge erred in granting the order superseding the execution, because there was no reason whatever for so doing.

Opinion:
Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court
Terry, C. J., and Field, J., concurring.
The plaintiffs obtained judgment in the Court below; and the defendant filed notice and undertaking on appeal. The plaintiff having excepted to the sufficiency of the sureties, they failed to justify to the satisfaction of the clerk, who proceeded to issue execution. The defendant then applied to the Judge of the District Court, who granted an order of supersedeas; and from this order the plaintiffs appealed.
Upon an examination of the proceedings before the clerk, we are satisfied that he was correct in disregarding the undertak ing. The sureties, from their answers, and their refusals to answer pertinent and material questions, would appear to have been unable to respond in the amounts for which they were bound. Most of their property consisted of negotiable promissory notes, the names of the makers of which they refused to disclose. There was evidence tending to show that the notes had been made for the purpose of enabling the sureties to justify.
The action of the District Court in making the order, was erroneous, and the order is, therefore, vacated.