Case Name: HENEY et al., Respondents, v. ALPERS et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1883-03-27
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 164
Docket Number: No. 7920
Parties: HENEY et al., Respondents, v. ALPERS et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
HENEY et al., Respondents, v. ALPERS et al., Appellants.
No. 7920;
March 27,1883.
Appeal—Frivolous and for Delay Only—Damages as Penalty.— An appeal from a judgment in an action on a bond, given to release an attachment, where a demurrer to the complaint, which complaint alleged each step in the former action, the judgment, refusal of the defendant to pay same, and that it was still unpaid, and prayed accordingly, was overruled, and, upon an answer being then filed pre-
seating as the sole issue the recovery of the judgment, the court found for the plaintiff, is so plainly without merit that it must have been taken for delay only, wherefore the supreme court, while confirming the judgment appealed from, adds twenty per cent damages.
APPEAL from Superior Court, San Francisco.
George Turner for appellants; Cowdery & Preston for respondents.

Opinion:
By the COURT.
The bond in suit was given for the release of property attached. It was not given under the code, for the redelivery of the property or the payment of the value thereof, but was an undertaking "that in case the plaintiff recover judgment in said action, defendant will on demand pay to plaintiff the amount of whatever judgment may be recovered in said action." The complaint in this action alleged the commencement of the former action, the seizure under attachment, the giving of the bond, the subsequent recovery of the judgment, a demand upon the defendant therein that he pay the judgment, his refusal, and that the same is unpaid. The defendants demurred to the complaint. We see no error in the order of the court overruling the demurrer. The only issue of fact presented by the answer is as to the. recovery of the judgment. The court found that on the 31st of July, 1878, judgment was recovered in the former action by plaintiffs against the defendants therein for eleven hundred and twenty-five dollars and twenty cents, and rendered judgment for plaintiffs herein for thirteen hundred and forty-four dollars and eighteen cents. We see no merit in any of the points presented by appellants, but are of the opinion that the appeal was taken for delay.
The judgment is therefore affirmed with twenty per cent damages.