· 6/23/1891

Leonard v. Flynn

Citations

89 Cal. 535
26 P. 1097
1891 Cal. LEXIS 850

Syllabus

Execution—Certificate of Sale — Conveyance by Purchaser — Assignment — Sheriff’s Deed to Grantee. — The conveyance of a purchaser’s interest in land purchased at execution sale before the time for redemption expires operates as an assignment of the sheriff’s certificate of sale, and the subsequent execution of a sheriff’s deed to the grantee of the execution purchaser vests such grantee with a perfect title. Ejectment — Plea in Abatement — Another Action Pending — Order of Proof. — In an action of ejectment, where, in addition to the defense of abatement by reason of the pendency of a former action, the defendant relies upon other defenses, which go directly to the merits of the cause, it is the better practice for the trial court to require the defendant to present his evidence upon his plea in abatement at the opening of his defense. Ir. — Second Action on After-acquired Title. — A plaintiff may have two suits against the same defendant for the recovery of the possession of the same land pending at the same time, if the second action is brought on a title acquired after the commencement of the first; and the pendency of a former action by one having merely an equitable title to the land is not a bar to a second action by the same plaintiff after he has acquired the legal title. Id. — Statute of Limitations — Delivery of Sheriff’s Deed.—The statute of limitations does not commence to run against a purchaser of land at a sheriff’s sale until the sheriff’s deed has been delivered to him. Id. — Improvements by Defendant — Equitable Estoppel.—The fact that shortly after the entry of the defendant upon the land he placed valuable improvements thereon, with the knowledge of the plaintiff and his grantors, and without any objection from them, and that at that time the plaintiff and his grantors knew their title, and that it was the same at the commencement of the action, is not sufficient to constitute an equitable estoppel as against the plaintiff

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that under Georgia’s old Evidence Code, “an expert may give an opinion based upon facts personally observed by the expert and upon data collected by another and personally observed or reviewed by the expert”
explaining that under Georgia’s old Evidence Code, “an expert may give an opinion based upon facts personally observed by the expert and upon data collected by another and personally observed or reviewed by the expert”
explaining that “‘[w]hile mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient evidence to convict one of being a party to a crime, criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before, during and after the offense’” (citation omitted)
where testimony was ruled admissible, \trial counsel's failure to make a meritless objection cannot constitute evidence of ineffective assistance\
no Confrontation Clause violation where medical examiner used another person’s autopsy report, which was not admissible, to testify about his opinion of victim’s cause of death

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garoutte

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.