Beshara v. Goldberg

BURKE, P. J. This is an application by appellant William Goldberg for a writ of supersedeas to restrain an execution sale pending his appeal from an order denying his motion as an intervener, to quash plaintiff’s levy of attachment.

On December 13, 1960, the plaintiff in this action brought suit against C. A. Petrie to recover upon a promissory note for the sum of $8,250, together with interest and attorneys’ fees. On the same date plaintiff caused a writ of attachment to be issued, delivering said writ to the Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles with written instructions to attach the following described property standing as a matter of record in the name of defendant: “All right, title and interest of Defendant C. A. Petrie in and to that certain ‘Assignment of Oil Payment’ recorded September 27, 1960, in Book M 612— Page 372 official records Los Angeles County Recorder. Said assignment being from Buttram Texhoma Company to P. R. Anderson & C. A. Petrie covering oil payment rights in and to oil and gas extractions from real property as described in Exhibits and Tracts made a part of said recorded document.”

The return of the levying officer states that on December 14,1960, he attached the above described “personal property,” “by personally delivering to the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, for record, a true copy of said writ, together with written notice of said attachment and description of the property attached thereto, at Ms office in the City of and County of Los Angeles, State of California.”

By an assignment dated February 28, 1961, and recorded March 3, 1961, defendant Petrie assigned to petitioner all of Ms right, title and interest in and to the oil payment described in the above “assignment of Oil Payment,” for which petitioner paid to Petrie the sum of $30,000. The assignment contains a warranty that, with the exception of certain prior assignments of percentage interests in said oil payments made by assignor, “there are no outstanding attachment or liens against his said interest.” Petitioner testified that it was about a year and a half after this assignment that he first learned of the attachment.

[769]It appears that, pursuant to stipulation between plaintiff and defendant in the main action, on September 17, 1962, a minute order of the court ordered judgment for plaintiff against the defendant for $10,391.70. The formal judgment was filed on November 20, 1962.