Pickens v. Coffey

27 P.2d 914, 136 Cal. App. 105, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 6
California Court of Appeal·Decided December 28, 1933·No. Docket No. 5029.·Published·Cited by 16 cases

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

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

27 P.2d 914 (Pickens v. Coffey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Gomez
530 B.R. 751 (E.D. California, 2015)
Forman v. Chicago Title Insurance
32 Cal. App. 4th 998 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
Carr v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
152 Cal. App. 3d 881 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
Fosgate v. Gonzales
107 Cal. App. 3d 951 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
Lee v. Brown
553 P.2d 1121 (California Supreme Court, 1976)
People v. United Bonding Insurance
489 P.2d 1385 (California Supreme Court, 1971)
Collins v. County of Los Angeles
241 Cal. App. 2d 451 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Weinstock v. Eissler
224 Cal. App. 2d 212 (California Court of Appeal, 1964)
Bainbridge v. County of Riverside
334 P.2d 625 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
People v. Burton
305 P.2d 302 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Kaiser v. Mansfield
297 P.2d 98 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Smith v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.
195 P.2d 457 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Giometti v. Etienne
55 P.2d 216 (California Supreme Court, 1936)