Pickens v. Coffey

California Court of Appeal

Pickens v. Coffey

27 P.2d 914, 136 Cal. App. 105, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 6

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 28, 1933

DocketDocket No. 5029.

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 27 P.2d 914 (Pickens v. Coffey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pickens v. Coffey, 27 P.2d 914, 136 Cal. App. 105, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 6 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

LEMMON, J., pro tem.

In this proceeding a judgment creditor sought successfully to subject the homestead of the judgment debtor to execution under the provisions of sections 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code. The trial court adjudged the homestead exemption to be the sum of $1,000 and ordered a sale of the real property by the marshal of the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles and decreed that out of the proceeds of the sale there be paid to the judgment debtor the amount of the homestead exemption of $1,000, the expenses of the sale and the cost of the proceeding be then deducted, the amount of the judgment be next paid to the judgment creditor and the balance paid to the judgment debtor.

Bespondent herein, the judgment creditor in the proceeding, moves to dismiss the appeals taken from several orders of the trial court. The homestead property was sold by the marshal in pursuance to the court’s decree and the sale brought the sum of $1521.40. This sum is just sufficient to discharge the homestead exemption of $1,000, the expenses of sale and the cost of the proceeding and the claim of the judgment creditor. Appellant has accepted from the marshal the said sum of $1,000.

The acceptance from the marshal of this sum constituted an election to abide by the judgment and the doctrine of estoppel by election is applicable. The case of Turner v. Markham, 152 Cal. 246 [92 Pac. 485], is directly in point and determinative upon the motion.

The motion is granted and the appeals dismissed.

Plummer, J., and Pullen, P. J., concurred.

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

LEMMON, J., pro tem.

In this proceeding a judgment creditor sought successfully to subject the homestead of the judgment debtor to execution under the provisions of sections 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code. The trial court adjudged the homestead exemption to be the sum of $1,000 and ordered a sale of the real property by the marshal of the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles and decreed that out of the proceeds of the sale there be paid to the judgment debtor the amount of the homestead exemption of $1,000, the expenses of the sale and the cost of the proceeding be then deducted, the amount of the judgment be next paid to the judgment creditor and the balance paid to the judgment debtor.

Bespondent herein, the judgment creditor in the proceeding, moves to dismiss the appeals taken from several orders of the trial court. The homestead property was sold by the marshal in pursuance to the court’s decree and the sale brought the sum of $1521.40. This sum is just sufficient to discharge the homestead exemption of $1,000, the expenses of sale and the cost of the proceeding and the claim of the judgment creditor. Appellant has accepted from the marshal the said sum of $1,000.

The acceptance from the marshal of this sum constituted an election to abide by the judgment and the doctrine of estoppel by election is applicable. The case of Turner v. Markham, 152 Cal. 246 [92 Pac. 485], is directly in point and determinative upon the motion.

The motion is granted and the appeals dismissed.

Plummer, J., and Pullen, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 P.2d 914, 136 Cal. App. 105, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickens-v-coffey-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack