61 Cal. 145, 8,186, Los Angeles County Bank v. Raynor

Docket Nº:8,186
Citation:61 Cal. 145
Opinion Judge:McKEE, Judge
Party Name:LOS ANGELES COUNTY BANK v. PLATT A. RAYNOR
Attorney:Paris & Goodall, for Appellant. Bennett & Wigginton, also for Appellant. Satterwhite & Curtis, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: McKee, J. McKinstry andRoss, JJ., concurred in the judgment.
Case Date:July 27, 1882
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 145

61 Cal. 145

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BANK

v.

PLATT A. RAYNOR

No. 8,186

Supreme Court of California

July 27, 1882

Department One

Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino. Rolfe, J.

COUNSEL

Paris & Goodall, for Appellant.

The Court erred in admitting in evidence the judgment roll, the writ of execution and the return thereon, and the Sheriff's deed, against the defendant's objections. ( C. C. P., §§ 668, 681; Casement v. Ringgold , 28 Cal. 339; Freeman on Judgment, §§ 40, 409; Freeman on Executions, § 24; Sharp v. Lumley , 34 Cal. 614; Penniman v. Cole, 8 Met. 496.)

Bennett & Wigginton, also for Appellant.

Satterwhite & Curtis, for Respondent.

Is an execution void, which is issued after judgment rendered, but before it is entered? (Lynch v. Kelly , 41 Cal. 232; see C. C. P., §§ 681 and 901; Fish v. Emerson , 44 N.Y. 376; Jones v. Carnahan , 63 Ind. 229; Franklin v. Merida , 50 Cal. 289.)

The entry of a judgment adds nothing to its validity. (Freeman on Ex., § 18; Freeman on Judgments, §§ 40, 41; C. C. P., § 475; Casement v. Ringgold , 28 Cal. 339; Van Alstyne v. Cook , 25 N.Y. 489; 3 Wait's Practice, 584, 713.)

JUDGES: McKee, J. McKinstry andRoss, JJ., concurred in the judgment.

OPINION

McKEE, Judge

Page 146

This was an action for recovering the possession of a tract of land.

At the trial of the issue made by the complaint and answer, the plaintiff, to prove his right of entry, offered in evidence the judgment roll in the case of the Los Angeles County Bank v. defendant, P. A. Raynor, and others. The roll showed that an action had been commenced in the late District Court of San Bernardino County, on May 2, 1876, to foreclose a mortgage given by Raynor to the bank upon the land in dispute; that summons had been duly issued, and was personally served on Raynor, who made default; and that, after his default had been entered, the Court made and filed its written finding and conclusions of law, upon which judgment was duly given and signed by the Judge, June 27, 1876; but the judgment was not entered in the judgment book until March 21, 1881, when it was then indorsed by the Clerk of the Court " Entered as of June 26, 1876, by stipulation of the defendant Raynor." The plaintiff also offered in evidence an execution issued on the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP