Case ID: cal_23/html/0255-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Crocker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NORTHAM et al. v. GORDON.
    The purchaser of a judgment entered by default, takes it subject to the right of the defendant upon showing sufficient grounds, to have the default and judgment set aside, and to be let in to defend the action; and in this respect stands in no better position than Ms assignor.
    Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    
      Tompkins & Belknap, for Appellants.
    
      Hepburn & Dwinelle, for Respondent.
   Crocker, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring.

A judgment was duly entered against the defendant in this case by default, on the twenty-third day of September, 1862, and immediately, upon the same day, the plaintiffs assigned the judgment to one Kahman. The defendant, a few days afterward, applied to the Court, upon good and sufficient grounds, to set aside the default and judgment, and let him in to defend the action. The assignee of the judgment opposed the motion, on the ground that he was a bona fide purchaser, and that the defendant had no right to such relief, as against him. The Court granted the motion, set aside the default and judgment, and the assignee has taken this appeal. The assignee stands in no better position in this matter than the assignor, as was held by this Court in Wright v. Levy (12 Cal. 262) ; Fore v. Manlove (18 Id. 436). In purchasing the judgment, he took it subject to the right of the defendant to have the default and judgment set aside upon a proper showing.