Hammond

Hammond v. Cailleaud

Good Law
111 Cal. 206·1896 Cal. LEXIS 567·43 P. 607
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1896No. 15961California3,233 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff as referee in the partition suit of Finnerty et al. v. Pennie et al., to recover the sum of seventeen hundred and fifty dollars from the defendant. The action of Finnerty et al. v. Pennie et al., was for a partition of a certain lot situate on the corner of Natoma and Mary streets in the city of Ban Francisco, in which a decree was entered determining the interests of the several parties, the amount and priority of several liens thereon, and adjudging that said lot was incapable of partition, and ordering a sale thereof by Hammond, the plaintiff herein, who was duly appointed sole referee for that purpose, the sale to be subject to confirmation by the court.

The referee offered said property for sale at public auction, and at such sale the defendant herein became the purchaser upon his bid of seven thousand five hundred dollars, and thereupon deposited with the referee seven hundred and fifty dollars, that being ten per cent of the amount bid.

The purchaser opposed the confirmation of the sale upon grounds hereinafter stated, but the conrt confirmed the sale, and the referee executed and tendered a deed in due form, and demanded payment of…

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.