McCarty v. Christie
Before: Terry
Synopsis
A note for five hundred dollars by an insolvent, to the order of Alfred McCarty, is insufficiently described where the schedule simply states, “Alfred McCarty, borrowed money, April, 1855, $500; ” and a discharge in such case is no bar to a suit on the note.
The payment by a judgment debtor of the judgment, after a Sheriff’s sale, extinguishes the lien; and the fact that he takes a transfer of the certificate and the Sheriff’s deed, instead of a certificate of redemption, cannot divest the lien of a subsequent judgment.
Terry, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.
There is no error in the judgment. The insolvent proceedings constituted no bar to plaintiff’s claim, for the reason that defendants’ schedule contained no sufficient description of plaintiff’s demand.
The payment of Gallagher’s judgment operated to extinguish the prior lien, and the fact that the judgment debtor took a transfer of the certificate of sale and a Sheriff’s deed, instead of a certificate of redemption, could not operate to divest plaintiff’s lien.
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)