History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hancock v. Bowman
49 Cal. 413
Cal.
1874
Check Treatment
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

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 Details

Case Name: Hancock v. Bowman
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1874
Citation: 49 Cal. 413
Docket Number: No. 3,120
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.