Sorensen

Sorensen v. Coddington

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 2·79 Cal. App. 199·249 P. 37
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 20, 1926Docket No. 5642.California1,265 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Knight, J.

Three motions are presented herein for determination, each arising out of an appeal taken by C. Martin from an order denying his motion to set aside an execution sale of personal property which had been seized by the sheriff while in the possession of Martin as lessee thereof and sold to the firm of Feigenberg Bros, and one Bercovich, pursuant to a writ of execution issued in an action brought by E. Sorensen against C. H. Coddington, Martin’s lessor. The purchasers at said sale and the plaintiff in the action now present separate motions for the dismissal of said appeal, and Martin has moved that said appeal be forthwith submitted for decision and that the order appealed from be reversed. All three motions are based upon the same ground, namely, that the issues involved in said appeal have become moot.

The essential facts are as follows: Sorensen commenced an action against Coddington to recover upon a promissory note and upon two assigned claims for the sale of merchandise. An attachment was issued and levied upon certain real property belonging to Coddington. Judgment by default was entered, grounded upon constructive service of summons, Coddington being at the time a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.