Procedural Posture

Plaintiff vendee appealed orders of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) which discharged writs of attachment in its action against defendant and respondent vendors to recover damages for failure to deliver the full quantity of property under the parties’ contract.

Nakase Law Firm is an unpaid wage lawyer


The vendee claimed that the vendors failed to deliver all the iron rails due under the parties contract after they received full payment. The vendee obtained a writ of attachment for the amount of resulting damages and garnished the vendors’ bank accounts. On appeal from the lower court’s discharge of the writs of attachment, the court affirmed. Because the action was strictly for damages for breach of contract, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 537(1) or 538 (1) did not authorize attachment. The statute permitted attachment against residents only in an action on an express or implied contract for direct payment of money. The court also rejected the vendee’s claim that the motions to dissolve the attachment were improperly heard by the trial court because the vendors could move to discharge an improper attachment. Finally, under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 556, the vendor did not have to make a general appearance.


The orders were affirmed.

You may also like...