Wellborn v. Wellborn

California Supreme Court

Wellborn v. Wellborn

195 P.2d 792, 32 Cal. 2d 221, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 216

California Supreme Court·Decided July 13, 1948·No. L. A. No. 20035·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

Wellborn v. Wellborn, 195 P.2d 792, 32 Cal. 2d 221, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 216 (Cal. 1948).

Pincite

195 P.2d 792 (Wellborn v. Wellborn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related