Cederholm v. Loofborrow
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County. Goods are not in custody of the law until in possession of some officer or servant of a court under or by virtue of some writ or order. (6 Wait’s Actions and Defenses, p. 617; BucTcley v. BucTcley, 9 Nev. 379.) The goods not being in custodia legis, an action of replevin was the proper remedy and the one provided by the code. (Idaho Code, e. 16; Wells on Replevin, see. 16; Jones on Chattel Mortgages, sec. 442.)
1Opinion of the CourtHays, C. J.
Defendants gave plaintiff a chattel mortgage which became due on the first day of December, 1884. On the fourth day of December, plaintiff commenced an action to foreclose the same. On the next day he demanded possession of the mortgaged property, which was refused. Three days later he brought an action of claim and delivery for possession of the property. Defendants answered in each suit. The causes coming on to be heard were consolidated for the purpose of trial, and then, by consent, were referred to a referee to take testimony, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to report…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Eastman v. TurmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by8 opinions
- Coburn v. CoburnMontana Supreme Court · 1931
- Forbush v. San Diego Fruit & Produce Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1928
- Ely v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Berg v. CareyIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Portland Cattle Loan Co. v. BiehlIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.