Skip to main content
· 7/1/1869

Hunt v. Loucks

Citations

  • 38 Cal. 372

Syllabus

<p>Executions—When Voidable.—If an execution directs the levy of more money than the judgment calls for, it is not for that reason void, but only voidable.</p> <p>Executions—When Amended.—If an execution calls for too much money, it will not be set aside, but amended, so as to agree with the judgment, upon the application of the parties to it, or either of them.</p> <p>Execution Sales—When Valid—When Void. — Sales to a bona fide purchaser under voidable executions uve valid, though the executions be afterwards set aside, but sales under void executions are invalid, and pass no title, even to a bona fide purchaser.</p> <p>Common Law Rules as to Validity of Judicial Sales Unchanged by Statute. —The two hundred and thirty-seventh section of the code does not change the rules of the common law as to the validity of judicial sales, hut guards against their mischievous consequences in certain cases, hy affording a remedy which the common law does not.</p> <p>Bona Fide Purchased—Who is.—If a purchaser at a judicial sale he not a party to the execution, he is a bona fide purchaser; hut whether he would be a bona fide purchaser,' if a party to the execution, not decided.</p> <p>Executions not Void.—Executions which have been issued according to the established course of practice, and are not so erroneous that they cannot he amended, are not void.</p> <p>Executions Void.—Executions not under seal, issued from a Court which has been abolished, or is not of competent jurisdiction, or upon a void judgment, or upon a judgment against an administrator, or after the death of the judgment debtor, or after an appeal and stay—instanced hy the Court as probable examples of void executions.</p> <p>Executions not Open to Collateral Attack.—Executions which are merely voidable cannot be attacked collaterally even by tko parties to them, much less hy strangers.</p> <p>Idem. ■—The plaintiff in an action of ejectment relied upon an execution sale to which neither ho nor the defendant was a p

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • Richmond County’s failure to publish pre-election notice as required by statute vitiated the election
  • failure of election to comply with statute requiring notice to be given in a certain way rendered special election void even though election had mooted challengers’ prior appeal of denial of their attempt to enjoin election

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sanderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.