Berthiaume v. John Doe
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. A. J. Buckles, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtKerrigan, J.
This is an action of claim and delivery for the return of lost property. The defendant, in addition to his answer, set up a cross-complaint demanding payment of a reward of five hundred dollars, and that the same be declared to be a lien upon the property. The case was tried, and judgment went for defendant as demanded.
It is not disputed that the plaintiff lost the property in question, that the defendant found it, nor that the plaintiff offered a reward of five hundred dollars for its return. It is denied, however, that the defendant, relying upon the promise of plaintiff to pay the reward,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Reif v. PaigeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Pierson v. . MorchNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Wood v. PiersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Amis v. ConnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
3Cited by4 opinions
- Landberg v. LandbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Davis v. JacobyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Laird v. McPheeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Román Cancel v. District Court of AreciboSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1944