Lawyers' Reports Annotated Volume 47 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...equivalent." In Dawson v. Schloss, 93 Cal. 199, 29 Pac. 31, the plaintiff had recovered a judgment in the sum of $5,000 against Schloss and Hinkle in an action for mali47 L. R. A. cious prosecution. A new trial was granted as to defendant Schloss, which resulted in n verdict and judgment against Schloss for $3,000, and he appealed from the judgment. At the time of the second trial, the original judgment for $5,000 against Hinkle was of record and unsatisfied. It was contended by the appellant that no judgment should have been rendered against Schloss on the new trial, so long as the original judgment existed against Hinkle; that, while separate suits may be brought against each of several joint tortfeasors, yet, if the defendants are sued jointly, there can be but one verdict and judgment. This court answered this contention that "such is not the prevailing rule in the United States," quoting from Judge Cooley the above-cited paragraph. The court, continuing, says: "There is no pretense that any part of the judgment against Hinkle has been paid or satisfied, or even that execution has been taken out upon that judgment." Nichols v. Dunphy, 58 Cal. 605, was an action in tort. A judgment had been obtained against defendants. One of the defendants appealed, and secured a reversal of the judgment. Thereupon the other defendant, against whom execution had been taken out, moved for an order quashing the execution. That motion was granted, on the theory that there could not be a several judgment when the action had been joint. Discussing the action of the court below, this court says: "We think the court erred in quashing the execution against Carmen. The judgment against her was unaffected by the appeal of her codefendant and the subs...