Mayo v. Foley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth District, Sacramento County. Action for the recovery of certain real estate, situate in the city of Sacramento. Judgment was for defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth District, Sacramento County. Action for the recovery of certain real estate, situate in the city of Sacramento. Judgment was for defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion. First — The judgment in the case of the People etc. v. Tim Foley et al., given in evidence by plaintiff, was valid, both as against the defendant and the real estate and improvements, and comes within the rule laid down in Hahn v. Kelly (34 Cal. 402), and cannot be impeached in a collateral action.…
1Opinion of the Court
Wallace, J.,
delivered ’the opinion-of the Court,-Ehodes, C. J., Ceoceett, J., and Temple, J., concurring:
To establish title in himself to the demanded premises the plaintiff offered in evidence at the trial certain judicial records, by which it appeared that the people regularly instituted an action against the defendant, Foley, and also the demanded premises themselves, for the recovery of certain *283delinquent tases, and tbat Foley and tbe real estate were regularly served with procéss in the action; that a general default was made, and it was by the Court, thereupon, adjudged and determined…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. District Court of Eighth Jud. Dist.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1925
- Baldwin v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Crane v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Wood v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- State ex rel. Elliott v. GuerreroNevada Supreme Court · 1877
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.