Legal Opinion

Farmer v. Rogers

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1858PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Motion to set aside proceedings subsequent to judgment recovered in the Court below. In September, 1855, the plaintiff recovered judgment in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, County of Siskiyou, against the defendants, for §964, and in October following, issued execution thereon, under which a sale was made of a building in Yreka, to Tomlinson and Wood, for $2300. In January, 1857, this Court, on appeal, reversed the judgment, and upon the filing of the…

Read the full summary

Motion to set aside proceedings subsequent to judgment recovered in the Court below. In September, 1855, the plaintiff recovered judgment in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, County of Siskiyou, against the defendants, for §964, and in October following, issued execution thereon, under which a sale was made of a building in Yreka, to Tomlinson and Wood, for $2300. In January, 1857, this Court, on appeal, reversed the judgment, and upon the filing of the remittitur in the Court below, judgment was there rendered in favor of the defendants, who now move to set aside all the…

1Opinion of the CourtField, J.

Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The motion must be denied. The eighth section of the Act concerning Courts of Justice, upon which the defendants appear to rely, and which provides that when a “judgment or order is reversed or modified, this Court may make complete restitution of all property and rights lost by the erroneous judgment or order,” does not cover the present case. It applies only to those cases where the judgment operates upon specific property in such a manner that its title is not changed—as by directing the possession of real estate, or the delivery of documents, or…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. McFadden v. SwinertonOregon Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Coker & Bellamy v. RicheyOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Hewitt v. DeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Martin v. Minnekahta State BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Stoeckel v. RussellSupreme Court of Delaware · 1881

1 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