Anderson v. Rider
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. Ejectment to recover lots five, six, seven, and eight, in the block between A and B and Seventeenth and Eighteenth streets, in the City of Sacramento.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. Ejectment to recover lots five, six, seven, and eight, in the block between A and B and Seventeenth and Eighteenth streets, in the City of Sacramento. On the 3d day of August, 1868, a judgment was rendered enforcing a lien on the demanded premises for the tax of 1867. An order of sale was issued, and the premises were sold by the Sheriff on the 28th day of September, 1868. The purchase money was not paid to the Sheriff until the 13th day of January, 1869. The plaintiff relied on the Sheriff’s deed made under this…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The point made by the defendant, that the judgment, order of sale, and Sheriff’s deed under which the plaintiff deraigns title, are void, because it appears by the judgment that several city lots were assessed in solido, and not each separately, cannot be maintained. The precise point was decided, and we think correctly, in Mayo v. Foley, 40 Cal. 282. Nor was the Sheriff’s deed void because the purchase money was not paid until several months after the sale. There was no proof that there was any stipulation for credit *138between the Sheriff and the purchaser, or that it was not a…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Woodill & Hulse Electric Co. v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Jaicks v. OppenheimerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- Keen v. SheehanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- City of Excelsior Springs ex rel. McCormick v. HenryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Parker-Washington Co. v. Martha Corcoran, Richard Corrigan & Skrainka Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.