Ford v. Chambers
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The Court below found the following facts : “1. That on the first day of November, 1859, William Ford was doing business as a merchant at Quincy, and bad been so doing business for more than a, year before that time. That the stock in such business consisted of goods, wares, and merchandise usually kept in a store in the country.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The Court below found the following facts : “1. That on the first day of November, 1859, William Ford was doing business as a merchant at Quincy, and bad been so doing business for more than a, year before that time. That the stock in such business consisted of goods, wares, and merchandise usually kept in a store in the country. That he had several clerks in his employ in his business. “ 2. That at that time he was indebted to Jerry Ford, the plaintiff in this suit, and 'his brother, about the sum of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sawyer, J.
The main question in this case is, as to whether there was an immediate delivery of the stock of goods to plaintiff, Jerry Ford, before the levy of defendant, within the meaning of the fifteenth section of the Statute of Frauds, so as to render the sale valid as against creditors. We are satisfied that there *19was, and that the conclusion of law drawn by the Judge below from the facts found is, in this respect, erroneous. We have carefully examined the evidence, and think it fully sustains the facts found by the Court, and that in some respects the facts might have been…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Levy v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Waldron v. WaldronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Bullard v. His CreditorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Howard v. DwightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Gray v. SullivanNevada Supreme Court · 1876
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.