Robinett v. Connolly
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing- a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of certain property which had been taken possession of by the defendant, as sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, under a writ of attachment, issued in a certain action entitled Shain v. Robinett.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing- a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of certain property which had been taken possession of by the defendant, as sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, under a writ of attachment, issued in a certain action entitled Shain v. Robinett. On the day after the property was attached, Robinett affected a settlement with the attaching creditor, Shain, and the latter gave him an order on the sheriff to release the property attached upon payment of the…
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
The plaintiff, in the action Shain v. Robinett, could not require of the sheriff (defendant herein) to release the property by that officer attached *57therein, except upon payment of his keeper’s fees. (Stats. 1871-72, p. 778.) Shain did not pretend to direct the sheriff to release the attachment, except on the condition which the law attaches to every direction to release an attachment.
Eobinett would have acquired no right to demand possession of the property from the sheriff by virtue of his settlement with Shain, had that settlement not provided for the payment of the keeper’s fees. But it…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ross v. O'BRIENCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Allen v. ClarkDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1938
- Perrin v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Bentinck v. MenottiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Newell v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.