Los Angeles Soap Co. v. Bossen

California Court of Appeal Mar 30, 1932 No. Docket No. 4516.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's findings were not in conflict and supported the judgment, as the plaintiff's prior levy of execution established a superior lien over the appellant's subsequent, ineffectual attachment attempt.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings were in irreconcilable conflict and failed to support the judgment.
Whether the appellant acquired a prior lien on the funds in question through its attachment attempt.
Whether the trial court properly denied the motion to vacate the judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Every presumption must be indulged which will support the judgment.”

“A levy of attachment made by an officer on personal property which he does not see or have in his possession is void.”

“The plaintiff therefore acquired a prior lien upon this fund by virtue of its previous levy of execution.”

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment. The motion was presented pursuant to section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The evidence is not before this court.

[239]

It is contended the findings are in irreconcilable conflict and that they do not support the judgment.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff secured a judgment for $1103.44 against Tuba City Steam Laundry Company in the Superior Court of Yuba County September 8, 1930; that the defendant Bossen Bros. Laundry was possessed of the sum of $775.13 belonging to said Yuba City Steam Laundry Company; that a writ of execution was duly issued by the plaintiff in said original action and levied upon all property belonging to the Yuba City Steam Laundry in the possession of Bossen Bros. Laundry, which last-mentioned company refused to surrender or deliver any of said money or property to the officer upon said execution. Judgment for $775.13 was demanded. The defendant controverted the essential averments of the complaint and filed a cross-complaint alleging that on May 26, 1930, it took charge of the Yuba City Steam Laundry and collected certain accounts belonging thereto; that on September 16, 1930, the defendant collected and held the sum of $405.47 belonging to the Yuba City Steam Laundry; that subsequent to the levying of the execution above mentioned, this appellant, G. & H. Commercial Service Corporation, also levied an execution against the defendant in an action in which the last-mentioned company had also procured a valid unsatisfied judgment against the Yuba City Steam Laundry; that the appellant thereby claimed title to said sum of $405.47, in the hands of the defendant. The appellant was thereupon made a party defendant in this action under the provisions of section 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and admitting the allegations of the cross-complaint, demanded judgment for the sum of $381.77. The court adopted findings favorable to the plaintiff and rendered judgment accordingly for the sum of $459. A motion was subsequently made under section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure to vacate this judgment. The motion was denied. From this order denying the motion to vacate the judgment the G. & H. Commercial Service Corporation has appealed.

The paramount issue at the trial was to determine whether the plaintiff or the appellant had a prior lien upon the money in the possession of Bossen Bros. Laundry in partial satisfaction of their respective judgments theretofore procured. It is inferred the appeal from this order does not

Los Angeles Soap Co. v. Bossen

AI Brief

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief