Peterson v. Weissbein
A. G. PETERSON v. JOSEPH WEISSBEIN
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Works, J.
On a former appeal this cause was reversed on the ground that the defendants, who relied upon a constable’s deed to establish their title, had not made out. their case, for the reason that they had failed to introduce in evidence the judgment and- execution on which the deed was based. (Peterson v. Weissbein, 75 Cal. 174 .) On, a second trial this evidence was supplied, and judgment was again rendered for the defendants.
The plaintiff objected to the introduction of the judgment and execution in evidence, on the ground that the judgment was invalid. But it was, shown by the evidence that in an action between the plaintiff and the defendants’ grantor, who was the purchaser at the constable’s sale, it was determined by the judgment of the court that the judgment of the justice’s court and the sale under it were valid. This adjudication was conclusive as to the validity of the judgment. (Peterson v. Weissbein, supra.) Therefore, the court below, did not err in admitting, it in evidence.
The judgment roll in the case between the plaintiff and the defendants’ grantor was objected to on the ground that- the parties in that action were not the same as in this. But the defendants, having purchased from the party in the former action, the. judgment inured to their benefit, and was competent evidence.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for 24 summary judgment.”)
-
(“Summary judgment is 23 appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 24 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.”)
Cited by 31 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals2
- Federal District Courts24
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts3
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Run The World Inc. v. Xuan Jiang
- Arbi Kamali v. Rose Stevens
- Centers for Living, Inc. v. Centers Veterans Group, LLC; Wayne K. Burks and Kay E. Burks, as Trustees of the Wayne K. and Kay E. Burks Living Trust dated February 11, 1993; and Wayne K. Burks and Eula B. Burks, as Trustees of the Barry K. Burks Irrevocable Trust dated September 30, 1988
- (PC) Miller v. Diaz
- St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Kinsale Insurance Company
- Ross v. County of San Diego
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.