Legal Opinion

Da Arauje v. Rodriques

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 12, 1942No. Civ. 11763PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J. pro tem.

This is. an appeal by the defendant from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to quiet title. On January 10, 1933, defendant in this action recovered judgment by default against the plaintiff in this action in the Justice’s Court of Santa Clara Township for $260.13 and costs. A motion was thereafter made to set this default judgment aside. On March 3, 1938, the justice denied this motion and a writ of execution was issued on the same day. Pursuant to this writ the sheriff sold the property here in suit and the defendant herein became the purchaser at the execution sale.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Gray v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Doehla v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Baird v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Harrier v. BassfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Town of Hayward v. PimentalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Laubisch v. RoberdoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Wolfe v. WolfeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Wilkins v. WilkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Castle v. CastleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Wolfe v. WolfeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API