Legal Opinion

J. H. Coghill & Co. v. Marks

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1866PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County. J. H. Coghill <& Co. commenced an action against Samuel Marks to recover judgment for nine hundred and eleven dollars and sixty-four cents, for goods, wares, and merchandise alleged to have been sold by them to the defendant, and procured an attachment to issue, by virtue of which the defendant’s property was attached.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County. J. H. Coghill <& Co. commenced an action against Samuel Marks to recover judgment for nine hundred and eleven dollars and sixty-four cents, for goods, wares, and merchandise alleged to have been sold by them to the defendant, and procured an attachment to issue, by virtue of which the defendant’s property was attached. Afterwards Robert Marks commenced an action against the- same defendant, and attached the same property, and recovered judgment by default for eleven'hundred and ninety-one dollars and ninety-three…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Shafter, J.

It was a matter of no consequence to the respondent whether the judgment against Marks, assigned to the intervenor, was fraudulent or not, inasmuch as the attachment lien of the *677respondent was older than the lien of the intervener; and for the same reason it was unnecessary to inquire how much was due upon the judgment. The judgment was given in evidence simply for the purpose of showing that the relation of creditor and debtor existed between Samuel Marks and Robert Marks, and that Gross had succeeded to his rights by assignment. The proof of the judgment, coupled…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Kimball v. Richardson Kimball Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Potlatch Lumber Co. v. RunkelIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Faricy v. St. Paul Investment & Savings SocietySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  4. Moreland v. Monarch Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Takahashi v. KunishimaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API