Hancock v. Bowman
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Diggins v. Reay (Cal. 1880)
- Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)
- Ardery v. Smith (Ind. Ct. App. 1905)
- Loughren v. B. F. Bonniwell & Co. (Iowa 1904)
- Robinson v. Merrill (Cal. 1890)
- Ligare v. California Southern Railroad (Cal. 1888)
- Phelan v. Dunne (Cal. 1887)
- Driscoll v. Howard (Cal. 1883)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The complaint alleges that both defendants are owners of the lot against which it is sought to enforce the assessment. The default of Bowman was entered, but the summons was never served on Bofer, nor was there any attempt to take his default. Wet the decree provides for the sale of the lot, and that both defendants—and all persons claiming under them—be forever barred and foreclosed from asserting any right or title in the premises, etc. The statute gives no authority for a decree enforcing the lien, in the absence of Bofer, one of the parties in interest. (People v. Doe, 48 Cal. 560.)
The motion to “strike out” the judgment-roll was properly denied.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.