Case ID: cal_17/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GREEN v. THOMAS.
    The remedy against an execution issued on a judgment claimed to have been discharged by a decree in insolvency is by motion, and not by bill in equity for an injunction.
    
      Imlay v. Carpentier (14 Cal. 173) cited.
    Appeal from the Thirteenth District.
    Action to restrain defendant from enforcing a judgment in his favor against plaintiff, on the ground that the judgment had been discharged by a decree in insolvency.
    The only point made in the Court below was, whether the debt from Green to Thomas was sufficiently described in Green’s schedule. The description was: “ No. 8. John W. Thomas, of Mariposa ; a judgment in District Court; amount now due about nine hundred dollars.”
    The Court below held, that although the proceedings in insolvency were otherwise regular, the description was insufficient; that the judgment was not discharged; and accordingly dissolved the preliminary injunction issued to restrain the execution.
    Plaintiff appeals.
    Robinson, Beatty & Heacock, for Appellant, cited 2 Carr & Payne, 119; 4 Barn. & Cress, 15; Chitty on Cont. 188-9.
    
      Heydenfeldt, for Respondent, cited 7 Cal. 428; 9 Id. 477; 10 Id. 483, as to description ; and Imlay v. Carpentier (14 Cal. 173) to the point that plaintiff had mistaken his remedy, and that equity had no jurisdiction.
   Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

If the plaintiff is entitled to relief, he has a sufficient remedy by motion; and upon that ground the judgment is affirmed. (Imlay v. Carpentier, 14 Cal. 173.)

Judgment affirmed.