Farmer v. Rogers (1858) · DecisionDepot

Farmer v. Rogers

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1858Published

Before: Field

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statutory provision for restitution of property lost by an erroneous judgment does not apply to money judgments where execution was not stayed pending appeal. Consequently, the rights of purchasers at a sale conducted under such a judgment remain unaffected by a subsequent reversal.

Issues

Whether the Act concerning Courts of Justice allows for restitution of property following the reversal of a money judgment where execution was not stayed.

Disposition. Motion denied.

Synopsis

The eighth section of the Act concerning Courts of Justice, 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 case of a judgment for the recovery of money. 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 of particular personal property in the hands of defendant, and the like. Where an execution on a judgment for the recovery of money is not stayed by the undertaking on appeal required by statute for that purpose, a sale may be made on the execution, and the rights of purchasers are in no respect affected by the subsequent reversal of the judgment.

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court 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 of particular personal property in the hands of the defendant, and the like. In the present case, the judgment of the plaintiff was for the re[336]covery of money, and as its execution was not stayed by giving the undertaking on appeal required by statute for that purpose, the sale was properly made, and the rights of the purchasers aré in no respect affected by the subsequent reversal of the judgment.

Motion denied.

Farmer v. Rogers

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief