Gates v. Lane
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. This is the second appeal in this ease. The case on the first appeal is reported in the 44 Cal. 392. When the remittitur reached the Court below, the plaintiff amended his complaint, making Wm. Gates and Willet Gates joint-plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. This is the second appeal in this ease. The case on the first appeal is reported in the 44 Cal. 392. When the remittitur reached the Court below, the plaintiff amended his complaint, making Wm. Gates and Willet Gates joint-plaintiffs. The amended complaint alleged that, in the fall of 1862, the plaintiffs lived in Solano County, and gave defendant McElhany their promissory note for about $242, being the balance due him on a purchase of the possessory right to one hundred and sixty acres of land, which note was due…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court Crockett, J.:
The demurrer was properly sustained. If the judgment obtained against the plaintiffs was void on the face of the proceedings in the Justice’s Court for want of jurisdiction, as the complaint avers it to have been, these plaintiffs had an adequate remedy, by motion in that Court, to arrest the execution and stay further process on the judgment. (Logan v. Hillegass, 16 Cal. 201; Comstock v. Clemens, 19 Id. 77; Sanchez v. Carriaga, 31 Id. 179; Murdock v. De Vries, 37 Id. 527.) Nor did the fact that the execution was issued by the County Clerk, on a transcript of the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Scamman v. BonslettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- San Juan & St. Louis Mining & Smelting Co. v. FinchSupreme Court of Colorado · 1882
- Luco v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Carr v. Pennsylvania RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Cohen v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.