Legal Opinion

Butterfield v. Tietz

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 23, 1966No. Civ. 8250PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FINLEY, J. pro tem. *

Appellant Belho Corporation was not originally a party to this action. It did not become involved as a party until after judgment in the amount of $12,161.55 was entered in favor of plaintiff-respondent Butter-field and against defendants-respondents as judgment debtors. A writ of execution was issued and certain real property originally belonging to defendants-respondents, but then standing in the name of appellant, was sold to Butterfield at execution sale. Shortly thereafter Butterfield successfully presented a motion to set the sale aside. Appellant prosecutes this…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Elliott v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Adams v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  3. Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Braun v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Estate of SloanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. County of Alameda v. CarlesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Leoke v. County of San BernardinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. Guardianship of PankeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. Slaughter v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  5. Estate of BaldwinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973

4 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