Davids

Murphy v. Davids

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 301·62 Cal. App. 63·215 P. 1040
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 1, 1923Civ. No. 4494.California1,061 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel the entry of satisfaction of judgment.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on November 17, 1916, plaintiff Murphy obtained a judgment against the defendants Davids and Lindsay in the sum of $15,000 for malicious prosecution. An appeal from said judgment was noticed on the twenty-fourth day of November, 1916, and the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court on December 17, 1919 ( 181 Cal. 706 [ 186 Pac. 143 ]). Immediately following the notice of appeal and on the 27th of November, 1916, the plaintiff Murphy assigned the whole of said judgment as follows: An undivided one-fourth to his attorneys, Anderson & Anderson; an undivided one-third to the San Bernardino National Bank, and the remainder to his wife. Though notice of this assignment ivas not personally served upon the defendants, the assignment was filed with the county clerk and placed among the papers in the case. On the 19th of January, 1920, at the time when the remittitur in the original case was issued, the defendants Lindsay and Davids, took from the owners thereof assignments of four several judgments rendered in the superior court in San Francisco…

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.