TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Livermore v. Hodgkins

Livermore v. Hodgkins, 54 Cal. 637 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1880
Docket
No. 6,606
Judges
Department, Myrick
Citations
54 Cal. 637
Syllabus
Ex parte Order—Stay of Execution.—The District Judge made an ex parte order, without notice, recalling an execution; and afterward, without notice, made a further order, reciting that one of the defendants had commenced an action to vacate the judgment, and directing a stay of execution until that action he determined, or until further order. Held, that the Judge had no authority to make the orders; and the orders reversed accordingly.
Summary
Appeal from an order recalling, and from an order staying, execution, in the Sixteenth District Court, County of Kern. Eeed, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Departmentmyrick

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Department No. 2, Myrick, J.:

September 12th, 1877, plaintiff recovered judgment against defendants Hodgkins, Mills Jr., Howlett, and Griffiths, for the possession of certain lands, and for $500 rents and profits, $200 damages, and for costs. A writ of possession and execution was *638 issued, which was afterward returned executed as to the possession, and nothing made as to the rents, profits, damages, and costs. December 4th, 1878, an execution was issued for $720.80, the $20.80 being the costs. The execution was levied on real estate, which was advertised to be sold on the 30th of December, 1878. On the 20th of December, 1878, on the affidavits of Hewlett, Colby, (one of the attorneys for defendants). and of the Clerk, the District Judge of Kern County made an ex parte order, without notice, that the Clerk recall the execution, and that the Sheriff refrain from selling the property advertised. On the 26th the Sheriff, under that order, returned the execution. January 9th, 1879, plaintiff gave notice of motion to vacate the order of December 20th, 1878, recalling the execution and staying the sale. January 24th, 1879, the said District Judge, without notice, made a further order, reciting that Howlett, one of the defendants, had commenced an action to vacate the judgment, and directing that the execution be stayed until said action be determined, or until further order. The next day the District Court made an order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of December 20th, 1878, and directing that the execution be stayed until said other action be determined, or until further order. February 25th, 1879, plaintiff gave notice of motion to vacate the order of January 24th, which came on for hearing before the Court, March 14th, 1879, and was denied. Plaintiff appealed from the orders of January 25th, 1879, and March 14th, 1879.

The District Judge had no authority to make the orders of December 20th, 1878, and of January 24th, 1879, and the Court erred in refusing to set aside and vacate those orders, and in making the order of January 25th, 1879, staying the execution. Plaintiff having obtained his judgment, is entitled to enforce it, unless it be set aside or modified in due course of law.

The orders of January 25th, 1879, and March 14th, 1879, are reversed, and this cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Kern County, with instructions to vacate the orders of December 20th, 1878, and January 24th, 1879.

Thornton P. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 11939: 11959: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baum v. Baum335 P.2d 481 (Cal. 1959)
  2. Vermont Marble Co. v. Superior Court34 P. 326 (Cal. 1893)
  3. Sam Savin, Inc. v. Burdsal22 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio Ct. App. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Baum v. Baum335 P.2d 481 (Cal. 1959)
  2. Sam Savin, Inc. v. Burdsal22 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio Ct. App. 1939)
  3. Vermont Marble Co. v. Superior Court34 P. 326 (Cal. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list