Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Cal. 312

Scherr v. Himmelmann

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1878

California Supreme Court · decided 1878-07-01

The complaint alleges that certain proceedings were had which resulted in a judgment, in his favor against the defendant for the recovery of two thousand eight hundred and four dollars; that an execution issued and the Sheriff levied upon a certain lot of land; that plaintiff was the highest bidder at the sale thereof, bidding the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, which sum was credited on the execution.

Relies on Cross v. Zane

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1948

5 state decisions

1018781880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

¶1The plaintiff having recovered a judgment against the defendant for a sum of money, and having caused an execution *316to be issued, which was afterwards levied upon a tract of land as the property of the defendant, purchased the land for the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, and that sum was credited upon the execution; but the defendant, as' is alleged in the complaint, had no right, title, or interest in the land, nor the possession thereof, although there appeared of record a deed of conveyance purporting to grant the land to him. The plaintiff delivered ’to the defendant a conveyance of all the right, title, and interest acquired by his purchase at such sale, and demanded that the amount bid for the land be returned to him, or that the credit on the execution be cancelled. The defendant retains the deed of conveyance delivered to him by the plaintiff. The action is an action in equity, to set aside the credit on the execution, and have the original judgment revived for the sum so credited on the execution.

¶2Cross v. Zane, 47 Cal. 602, was a suit in equity to revive the judgment under circumstances quite similar to those in this case, and objection was taken in that case, as in this, to the effect that proceedings by motion was the only remedy; but this Court reversed the judgment of the Court below, rendered upon the order sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. Upon the authority of that case we hold that the demurrer was properly overruled, and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment upon the admission by the defendant of the facts alleged in the complaint.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/53/cal/312 · .json · Public domain