Bellmer v. Blessington
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Kierce & Gillogley, John T. Ryan, E. L. Foster, and T. F. Bachelder, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This action is based upon section 693 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is against a constable and his sureties, to recover the penalty and damages for selling personal property belonging to the plaintiff under a writ of execution, without giving the notice required by law.
It is contended by plaintiff that the execution was void because not dated, but this point will not be further noticed than to say that the action implies, and for its maintenance requires, a valid execution, and the point is therefore, as to plaintiff’s case, felo de se.
Five days’ notice is required by the statute. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bates v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- In re Difference & Controversy between E. M. Derby & Co. & City of ModestoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hagenmeyer v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Landregan v. PeppinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Misch v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cosgriff v. Bd. of Election Commr's of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Kahn v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Petition of Los Angeles Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- In re L.A. Tr. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Kahn v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.