Hentig v. Johnson
Before: Taggart
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
TAGGART, J.
Appeal from a judgment entered upon motion against sureties on an undertaking to perfect an appeal from a money judgment and to stay execution thereon. (8 Cal. App. 221, [96 Pac. 390].)
The motion was regularly noticed and heard upon a showing by the respondent that more than thirty days had elapsed since the filing in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the
remittitur
of this court affirming the judgment of the trial court; that $50 additional costs had been incurred by respondent, and that no part of the judgment appealed from had been paid. It was also made to appear to the court that subsequent to the date of the original judgment, and prior to the filing of the
remittitur
from this court as aforesaid, the respondent Hentig assigned all his right, title and interest in and to the original judgment to one Alice P. Haney, who is still the owner of said judgment, but that respondent did not sell or assign to said assignee of the judgment any interest in either the undertaking on appeal or the undertaking for stay of execution.
Appellant here contends that the assignment of the judgment constituted an equitable assignment of the interests of Hentig in the undertaking, and that the court had no au
[425]
thority under the showing made to enter judgment in favor of anybody but the assignee of the judgment, Alice P. Haney.
Section 385, Code of Civil Procedure, authorizes the action or proceeding to be continued in the name of the original party, and it is only by permission of the court that the name-of the assignee can be substituted. There is nothing in the record to show that in his motion for judgment against the sureties on the undertaking Hentig was not acting on behalf of the real party in interest. He continued to act as the attorney in the case in making the motion. This he might, do whether for himself or his assignee, and in support of the judgment it will be presumed that he was acting for the one entitled to make the motion, whichever this was. It is unnecessary that we should pass upon the question whether
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)