Beach v. Hodgdon

5 P. 77, 66 Cal. 187, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 726
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 8, 1884
DocketNo. 8,281
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 5 P. 77 (Beach v. Hodgdon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beach v. Hodgdon, 5 P. 77, 66 Cal. 187, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 726 (Cal. 1884).

Opinion

Ross, J.

1. This is not an action to enforce a lien upon real property, but a bill in aid of execution, to set aside two certain conveyances made by the execution debtor, upon the ground that they were fraudulently executed. Therefore, the provision of the present constitution requiring actions for the enforcement of liens upon real estate to be commenced in the county in \yhich such real property is situated, does not apply.

2. There is no specification calling in question the order striking out the answer of Hildreth. Nor did Hildreth move for a new trial. Therefore, no objection which might have been ground for a new trial on his part alone, can be considered.

3. By stipulation of counsel, the answer originally filed was made to stand as the answer to the complaint as amended.

4. We cannot say the court below was not justified in finding that the deeds in question were made in fraud of the plaintiff’s rights.

5. The order striking out the answer of defendant Hildreth is not appealable; the appeal therefrom is therefore dismissed, and the judgment and order refusing a new trial are affirmed.

McKee, J., and McKinstry, J.,. concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stearns v. Los Angeles City School District
244 Cal. App. 2d 696 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Los Angeles City Sch Dist v. Redwood Empire Title Co. of Mendocino Cty.
206 Cal. App. 2d 398 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Heffernan v. Bennett & Armour
146 P.2d 482 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Baettenhaussen v. Klugkist
52 P.R. 523 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1938)
Baettenhaussen v. Borda Klugkist
52 P.R. Dec. 540 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1938)
Alpha Hardware & Supply Co. v. Ruby Mines Co.
275 P. 984 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Wofford-Fain & Co. v. Hampton
92 S.E. 612 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Wood v. Thompson
90 P. 38 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Fuller v. Horner
77 P. 88 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)
Woodbury v. Nevada Southern Railway Co.
52 P. 730 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Sharon v. Sharon
7 P. 456 (California Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 P. 77, 66 Cal. 187, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beach-v-hodgdon-cal-1884.