Tomlinson v. Monroe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, County of Humboldt. The complaint averred that the horse was delivered to the defendant at Eureka, Humboldt County, California, and that the defendant proceeded to the City of Austin, State of Nevada, and there sold the horse.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, County of Humboldt. The complaint averred that the horse was delivered to the defendant at Eureka, Humboldt County, California, and that the defendant proceeded to the City of Austin, State of Nevada, and there sold the horse. The proofs of the plaintiff showed that the horse was left at a livery stable in Eureka, Humboldt County, in which Fenton Tomlinson,' a brother of the plaintiff!, owned, in partnership with the defendant." When the plaintiff" rested, the defendant’s attorney moved for a nonsuit, because Fenton Tomlinson was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
If the complaint in this action had been demurred to as ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain, the demurrer ought to have been sustained. It sets out with an averment that the horse in contest ;was of the value of three hundred dollars, and that the plaintiff delivered him to the defendant on an agreement that the latter would sell bim and account to the plaintiff for the proceeds; and it avers that the defendant sold the horse in Nevada, but does not state at what price. It then alleges that the defendant accepted the. horse at the agreed price of three hundred…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Elmore v. ElmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Bailey v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Owen v. MeadeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Rutherford v. BerickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- First National Bank v. EamesIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.