Horr v. Barker
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth J udieial District, County of San Francisco. In December, 1853, Hussey, Bond & Hale sold to Barker & Paddock a large quantity of flour, in store at the warehouse of Tilden & Little.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth J udieial District, County of San Francisco. In December, 1853, Hussey, Bond & Hale sold to Barker & Paddock a large quantity of flour, in store at the warehouse of Tilden & Little. A portion of the purchase-money was paid in hand, and the remainder was to be paid at stated periods, with the understanding that Barker & Paddock might withdraw any portion of the flour, from time to time, by paying the full price for the portion withdrawn. On the twenty-first of January, 1854, Barker and Paddock paid Hussey, Bond & Hale for several hundred barrels,…
1Opinion of the Court
Burnett, J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Courts—Terry, O. J., concurring.
The counsel of defendants insist that there was no sufficient segregation of the three hundred and twenty-four barrels from other flour. But it is unnecessary to notice this point, as it was determined by this Court when the case was here before, October, 1856. The segregation was decided to have been sufficient.
The next point made by defendant to sustain the order of the Court below in granting á new trial, is that the possession by plaintiffs of the warehouse-receipt issued to West, was no…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Allen, Bethune & Co. v. Maury & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Davis v. RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Ghirardelli v. McDermottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863