Mitchell v. Reed
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The plaintiff was a merchant, engaged in the sale of groceries and liquors. The business at the store was generally conducted by his clerk, D. II. Haskell. On the trial, i,t was proven by two witnesses that plaintiff was a Son of Temperance, and that he repeatedly denied that he dealt in liquors, alleging that the liquors in the store were the property of Haskell, who sold them without plaintiff's consent. These declarations of plaintiff coming to the ears of Wm. H. McGrew, a creditor of Haskell’s, he sued out an attachment, and had the liquors attached and sold as the property of Haskell.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Welland Canal Co. v. HathawayNew York Supreme Court · 1832
3Cited by13 opinions
- Carpy v. DowdellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Safway Steel Products, Inc. v. LefeverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Kinney v. WhitonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
- Horn v. ColeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1868
- Brickley v. EdwardsIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.