Wellborn v. Wellborn

California Supreme Court

Wellborn v. Wellborn

32 Cal. 2d 221

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 13, 1948

DocketL. A. No. 20035

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Cal. 2d 221 (Wellborn v. Wellborn) 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

Wellborn v. Wellborn, 32 Cal. 2d 221 (Cal. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

CARTER, J.

This is an appeal from an order quashing the partial satisfaction of judgment of July 18, 1940, and reinstating the judgment lien made on motion in the above entitled action after the findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in Sullivan v. Wellborn, ante, p. 214 [195 P.2d 787] this day decided. Mention is there made of such motion and order. Inasmuch as we have determined in Sullivan v. Wellborn, supra, ante, p. 214, that such partial satisfaction is to be expunged because it was the result of a void execution sale, the issue on this appeal becomes moot. (See Smith v. Bear Talley etc. Co., 26 Cal.2d 590 [160 P.2d 1]; Guardianship of Riley, 72 Cal.App.2d 742 [165 P.2d 555] ; Crocker v. Crocker First Nat. Bank, 60 Cal.App.2d 725 [141 P.2d 482]; Crouser v. Boice, 51 Cal.App.2d 198 [124 P.2d 358]; Scoville v. Be Bretteville, 50 Cal.App.2d 633 [123 P.2d 622].) The appeal should be, and therefore is, dismissed.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

CARTER, J.

This is an appeal from an order quashing the partial satisfaction of judgment of July 18, 1940, and reinstating the judgment lien made on motion in the above entitled action after the findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in Sullivan v. Wellborn, ante, p. 214 [195 P.2d 787] this day decided. Mention is there made of such motion and order. Inasmuch as we have determined in Sullivan v. Wellborn, supra, ante, p. 214, that such partial satisfaction is to be expunged because it was the result of a void execution sale, the issue on this appeal becomes moot. (See Smith v. Bear Talley etc. Co., 26 Cal.2d 590 [160 P.2d 1]; Guardianship of Riley, 72 Cal.App.2d 742 [165 P.2d 555] ; Crocker v. Crocker First Nat. Bank, 60 Cal.App.2d 725 [141 P.2d 482]; Crouser v. Boice, 51 Cal.App.2d 198 [124 P.2d 358]; Scoville v. Be Bretteville, 50 Cal.App.2d 633 [123 P.2d 622].) The appeal should be, and therefore is, dismissed.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Cal. 2d 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wellborn-v-wellborn-cal-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack