# Houghton v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · January 4, 1922 · 187 Cal. 661

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3302150

## Case

- **Full name:** C. S. HOUGHTON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 4, 1922
- **Citations:** 187 Cal. 661; 203 P. 765; 1922 Cal. LEXIS 490
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sloane
- **Judges:** Wilbur, Sloane
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3302150

## Opinion text

SLOANE, J.,
Concurring.—I concur in the decision, although I am of the opinion that the trial court was in error in excluding the judgment pleaded by defendant as a setoff and should have admitted it in evidence and proceeded with the trial, since, although an appeal had been taken from the judgment, no stay bond had been filed, and, under section 942 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment continued
*667
in effect for all purposes of its enforcement, and defendant had a right to use it as a setoff against the plaintiff’s claim
(Dowdell
v.
Carpy,
137 Cal. 33 , [ 70 Pac. 167 ];
Sewell
v. Price, 164 Cal. 265 , [ 128 Pac. 407 ]). However, as it was excluded from evidence upon petitioner’s objection that it had not become final, he is not in a position to protest a postponement of the trial to await the determination of the appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3302150. Public record. Not legal advice.