McLiesh v. Ball
Citations
- 58 Wash. 690
- 109 P. 209
- 1910 Wash. LEXIS 994
Syllabus
<p>Judgment—Collateeal Attack—Payment. It is not a collateral attack upon a judgment to show that a sale on execution thereunder was void because the judgment had been paid.</p> <p>Execution—Sale—Payment oe Judgment. After payment of a judgment to the plaintiff’s authorized agent, a sale on execution thereunder is void, and the lack of jurisdiction to sell is not cured hy an order confirming the sale.</p> <p>Quieting Title—Ejectment—Pleading—Defenses. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 785, providing that, in actions to recover the possession of land, the parties shall set forth their title, and that the superior title, whether legal or equitable, shall prevail, the court is to determine the title and grant relief according to the equities of the case; and defendants in possession, claiming that plaintiffs’ execution sale was void on the ground that the judgment had been paid, need not first institute a direct proceeding to cancel the judgment before answering the complaint.</p> <p>Estoppel—To Question Execution Sale. It cannot he urged that judgment debtors are estopped from claiming the invalidity of an execution sale hy standing by while title was passing to innocent purchasers, where, under instructions not excepted to, and sufficient evidence, the jury found they were not innocent purchasers.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a governmental function is discretionary if it is “not imposed by law and depends on judgment or choice of the government entity or employee.”
- holding that a governmental function is discretionary if it is “not imposed by law and depends on judgmént or choice of the government entity or employee.”
- applying Mississippi Code Annotated Section 63-3-305 (Rev. 2004), which “gives local authorities discretion in placing and maintaining traffic devices” (emphasis added)
- “If the nature of [MDOT’s] duty to warn of this pothole indeed involves choice or judgment and is grounded in policy considerations, then [MDOT] is immune under Section ll-46-9(l)(d)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Crow, Dunbar, Mount, Parker, Rudkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.