Vermont Marble Co. v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court Sep 28, 1893 No. No. 15418Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to restrain a sheriff from selling property levied upon under a valid execution, but denied the petition for review because the underlying insolvency proceedings abated upon the debtor's death.

Issues

Whether a court has jurisdiction to restrain a sheriff from selling property levied upon under an execution prior to insolvency proceedings.
Whether insolvency proceedings abate upon the death of the alleged insolvent debtor.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By the death of the alleged insolvent before the return day, the proceedings in insolvency abated, and with them the orders that had been made therein ceased to have any force.”

Synopsis

Insolvency—Dissolution of Attachments — Assignment Subject to Other Liens.—The statutory provision that the effect of an adjudication in insolvency is to dissolve attachments made within one month next preceding the commencement of the proceedings in insolvency, is equivalent to an express declaration that it dees not affect liens of any other nature, and the assignee takes the property of the insolvent subject to all other liens existing at the institution of the proceedings.

Id.—Prior Levy undeb Execution—Right of Sheriff to Sell—Jurisdiction of Court— Order Restraining Sale__By the levy of an execution upon the property of an insolvent debtor prior to the filing of the petition in insolvency, the judgment creditor acquires a lien which is not divested by the subsequent adjudication of insolvency of the debtor, and when the sheriff has seized personal property of the debtor under such execution, such property is not subject to the control of the court in the subsequent proceedings in insolveucy, and the court has no jurisdiction in such proceedings to make an order restraining the sheriff from selling the same, and such order cannot protect the sheriff

Id. — Death of Insolvent—Abatement of Pbooeedinqs—Effect upon Execution Sale. — The death of the insolvent before the return day upon the petition had the effect to abate the insolvency proceedings and all orders therein, but did uot affect the lien of the execution or relieve the sheriff of his obligation to sell the property.

Id. — Review of Abated Obdeks. —Where an order in insolvency proceedings has abated by the death of the insolvent, an order of the supreme court annulling it upon writ of review would be vain, and an application for such writ will be denied.

Harrison, J. The petitioner obtained a judgment in the superior court in and for the city and county of San Francisco, on the 31st of May, 1893, against William Black, for the sum of three thousand seven hundred and ten dollars, and on the same day caused an execution thereon to be issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff, and by virtue thereof the sheriff levied upon and took into his possession certain personal property belonging to the defendant, and advertised the same to be sold on the sixth day of June, 1893. On the third day of June, 1893, certain creditors of Black filed their petition in the superior court that he be adjudged an insolvent debtor, and thereupon the court made an order appointing June 17th as the [581]day for hearing the said petition, restraining him in the mean time from transferring any property and from collecting or receiving any debts, and also forbidding his creditors from paying any debt to him, or delivering to him any property belonging to him, or to any person, for his use. On the same day the court made the following order:—■

“ To J. J". MeDade, Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco:—

“Upon reading the petition of creditors praying that William Black be declared an insolvent debtor, and upon reading and filing the affidavit of J. F. Kennedy, presented in connection with said petition, it is hereby ordered that you refrain from selling any of the property of the said William Black by virtue of any writ of execution issued out of the suit entitled Vermorit Marble Company v. William Black, or any other suit, until the further order of this court. J. V. Coffey, Judge.

“Dated June 3, 1893.”

The said William Black died on the fifth day of June, 1893, and on the 17th of June, the return day of said application for his insolvency, the petitioner, upon notice of his motion to the petitioning creditors, moved the court to vacate the last-named order restraining the sheriff from selling the property. The court denied the motion, whereupon the present application was made for a review of the aforesaid orders.

By the levy of the execution upon the property of Black, prior to the filing of the petition in insolvency against him, the petitioner herein acquired a lien upon that propeity, which would not be divested by his subsequent adjudication of insolvency. (Howe v. Union Ins. Co., 42 Cal. 533.) In the absence of any statute, an adjudication in insolvency does not affect any lien upon the property of the insolvent existing at the institution of the proceedings for such adjudication, but the assignee takes the property of the insolvent subject to all such liens. Section 17 of the Insolvent Act provides that the effect of the adjudication is to dissolve any attachment made within one month next preceding the commencement of the insolvency proceedings, and this designation is equivalent to an express declaration that it does not affect liens of any other nature. The subsequent death of the judgment debtor did not affect

Vermont Marble Co. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief