Case Name: HENRY YOUNG v. W. A. THOMPSON et al.
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1881
Citations: 57 Cal. 281
Docket Number: No. 5,160
Parties: HENRY YOUNG v. W. A. THOMPSON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 281–281

Head Matter:
No. 5,160.
Department One.]
HENRY YOUNG v. W. A. THOMPSON et al.
Dbiiüebek—Injunction.—The plaintiff having obtained judgment in ejectment against S., the latter appealed, and the judgment was affirmed. The plaintiff brought an action against the sureties on the undertaking on appeal. They answered, averring that the execution of the said judgment had been enjoined, the answer showing that the facts upon which the injunction was obtained arose after the date of the judgment. The plaintiff demurred to the answer; the demurrer was sustained; judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed; held, that the appeal was without merit.
Appeal from a judgment in the Twenty-second District Court-, County of Sonoma. Wallace, J.
The action was brought to recover damages and costs, against the sureties upon an undertaking staying execution on appeal, given in an action in which the plaintiff had recovered judgment in ejectment against one Shinn. The answer averred, that, since the date of the judgment from which the appeal was taken, a decree of perpetual injunction had been duly made at the suit of Shinn, enjoining the execution of the judgment in ejectment-, and an exhibit was attached setting out the proceedings in the injunction suit, from which it appeared that the injunction was obtained on the ground that since the rendition of the judgment in ejectment Shinn had acquired the true title to the premises.
The plaintiff demurred to the answer, on the ground that it did not show any defense. The demurrer was sustained; and afterwards judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The record does not contain any amended answer, nor anything to show that one was filed; but the judgment contains a recital that a trial was had and witnesses sworn.
A. Thomas, for Appellant.
Barclay Henley, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court :
We see no merit in the appeal. The judgment is affirmed.