Taylor v. Seymour
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. This was an action for damages for unlawfully taking and converting plaintiff’s goods, brought against E. P. Seymour, an attaching creditor of plaintiff’s vendor, and E. Barry, the constable levying the attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. This was an action for damages for unlawfully taking and converting plaintiff’s goods, brought against E. P. Seymour, an attaching creditor of plaintiff’s vendor, and E. Barry, the constable levying the attachment. On the trial the plaintiff proved that he had purchased the goods, but failed to prove notice' of his claim to the goods upon Barry, and demand for their restitution by plaintiff, although he proved having notified the keeper, placed by Barry in charge of the goods, that they belonged to him, the plaintiff. It also…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
We think that, as in the ease of Daumiel v. Gorham, 6 Cal., (Jan. Term, 1856,) the officer was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s claim to the goods, and a demand for them.
The fact that the officer had already obtained indemnity, will not affect this right. The notice of another’s claim to the goods might materially affect the character of the indemnity which an officer might require.
The conversation between Taylor and the constable’s bailee of the goods, cannot be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Boulware v. CraddockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Vose & Co. v. StickneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862