Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 Cal. App. 2d 755

230 P.2d 408

Faust v. Faust

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 25, 1951

California Court of Appeal · decided 1951-04-25

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1975

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHINN, P. J.—

¶1I concur in the judgment. I would place the reversal on a different ground.

¶2The order quashing the writ was in my opinion improper and futile. Some three weeks prior to defendant’s notice of motion to quash the writ the sheriff made his return showing that he had collected and paid to plaintiff’s attorney the full amount called for. The writ had served its purpose. It was functus officio. There was no writ to recall. Defendant moved to quash the writ, leaving the return unchallenged. The effect of vacating an outstanding writ of execution is to stay further proceedings and to release the lien of any levy made under it. When the writ has been duly executed and returned any attack should be directed against what has been done, such as a sale of property, or, as here, the collection and payment of money. The writ being dead the attempt to set it aside in part was a vain act. The order should be reversed because it purports to affect the rights of plaintiff by an unauthorized and wholly ineffective procedure. I would not wish to say, even by implication, that an order purporting to quash a writ of execution that has been duly executed and returned can affect in any manner the proceedings had under it.

/103/calapp2d/755 · .json · Public domain