From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wise v. Griffith

Supreme Court of California
Jan 25, 1889
78 Cal. 152 (Cal. 1889)

Opinion

         Rehearing denied.

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         Moses G. Cobb, and R. Percy Wright, for Appellant.

          Edward P. Cole, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Thornton, J. Paterson, J., McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          THORNTON, Judge

         [20 P. 676] We find no error in this record. The evidence of Casey was properly admitted.

         Defendant Heuston became a purchaser of the mortgaged property pendente lite, with actual notice of the pendency of this action to foreclose the mortgage made by the defendants, Griffith and wife.

         We cannot see how the plaintiffs' action against Heuston is barred. He never was a necessary party to the action, but as purchaser with actual notice of the pendency of plaintiffs' action to foreclose he would have been bound by the decree against the Griffiths.

         Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

Wise v. Griffith

Supreme Court of California
Jan 25, 1889
78 Cal. 152 (Cal. 1889)
Case details for

Wise v. Griffith

Case Details

Full title:JOHN H. WISE et al., Respondents, v. GEORGE GRIFFITH et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 25, 1889

Citations

78 Cal. 152 (Cal. 1889)
20 P. 675

Citing Cases

Packard Bell Etc. Corp. v. Theseus, Inc.

Actual knowledge can take the place of the constructive notice imparted by the filing of a notice of lis…

Johnson v. Friant

The purchaser under the execution, after notice of lis pendens filed, was bound by the judgment without being…