Luckenbach

Luckenbach v. Laer

Good Law
190 Cal. 395·1923 Cal. LEXIS 538·212 P. 918
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 9, 1923L. A. Nos. 7047, 7048.California1,766 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Waste, J.

Appellants are dissatisfied with certain orders, made after judgment, denying their motions to vacate and set aside previous orders of the trial court, also made after judgment, appointing a receiver and advising him to institute certain actions against them, after the judgment was returned unsatisfied. The appellants are Chris Krempel, Anna Krempel, Lucy ITauerwaas, and William H. Preston, not one of whom was a party to the action.

The plaintiff, Luckenbach, instituted an action against the defendants Laer, Trueblood, and the Krempel-Preston Company, a corporation, to recover an ordinary money judgment upon certain promissory notes. Judgment was entered in his favor, which, with attorney’s fees and costs, amounted to approximately six thousand dollars. The judgment was returned unsatisfied. No statutory proceedings in aid of execution were had, but the plaintiff applied to the court, in this same action, for the appointment of a receiver of the defendant corporation, upon the ground that the corporation refused to apply its property in satisfaction of the judgment, and had suffered its right to do business to become suspended by reason of its failure to pay the license tax due…

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.