Case Name: WILLIAM B. LATHAM, Jr., v. P. H. BLAKE et al. THOMAS B. ROWE, Assignee of Plaintiff, Respondent, GEORGE W. OSBORN, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1888-12-29
Citations: 77 Cal. 646
Docket Number: No. 9912
Parties: WILLIAM B. LATHAM, Jr., v. P. H. BLAKE et al. THOMAS B. ROWE, Assignee of Plaintiff, Respondent, GEORGE W. OSBORN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 646–656

Head Matter:
[No. 9912.
In Bank.
December 29, 1888.]
WILLIAM B. LATHAM, Jr., v. P. H. BLAKE et al. THOMAS B. ROWE, Assignee of Plaintiff, Respondent, GEORGE W. OSBORN, Appellant.
Execution — Judgment cannot be Levied upon and Sold as Such. — A judgment, being but the evidence of the debt, and not the debt itself, cannot be levied upon as such and sold under execution.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco ordering an execution to issue.
The facts are stated in the opinion of Department One.
W. H. Fifield, and Garber & Bishop, for Appellant.
A judgment, under the Code of Civil Procedure, may be levied upon and sold under execution. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 688; Freeman on Executions, sec. 112; Webster v. McDaniel, 2 Del. Ch. 297; Hanna v. Bry, 5 La. Ann. 651; Righton v. Slidell, 9 La. Ann. 6.02; Safford v. Maxwell, 23 La. Ann. 346; O’Brien v. Odell, 10 Smedes & M. 371; Crabb v. Jones, 2 Miles, 130; Sweeney v. Allen, 1 Pa. St. 380; Fithian v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 114; Penniman v. Smith, 5 Lea, 130; Osborn v. Cloud, 23 Iowa, 104; 92 Am. Dec. 413; Adams v. Hackett, 7 Cal. 202; Fore v. Manlove, 18 Cal. 436; Southard v. McBrown, 63 Cal. 545; Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 522; 40 Am. Rep. 120.) The levy in question was properly made. (McBride v. Fallon, 65 Cal. 301; Dore v. Dougherty, 72 Cal. 232; Blood v. Light, 38 Cal. 653; 99 Am. Dec. 441.) The sale of the judgment was according to law. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 691, 699; Freeman on Executions, sec. 112; Herman on Executions, sec. 157; Safford v. Maxwell, 23 La. Ann. 345.)
Lewis & Dibble, and naynes & Mitchell, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court.
Upon rehearing, the order appealed from in this case is affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion filed in Department One, May 14, 1888, which opinion will stand as the opinion of the court in Bank.