Ham v. Cunningham
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Clary v. Rupert (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)
- Foreman Brothers Banking Co. v. Handy (Mich. 1925)
- Turner v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (Cal. 1921)
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 judgment against Sturgeon for the recovery of money was rendered August 23, 1872, and he departed this life on the second day of September following.
No execution on the judgment was issued during the lifetime of Sturgeon, and under the two hundred and fifteenth section of the former practice act, an execution upon a judgment of this character could not be issued after his death. Inasmuch as by reason of his death no execution could be legally issued upon the judgment rendered against him, the attachment, therefore, issued in the action became inoperative.
This was held in the case of Myres v. Mott (29 Cal. 367), in which we said, in substance, that whenever by reason of the death of the defendant the case became such that an execution could not be legally issued, the attachment-lien must of necessity cease.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.