Rankin v. Ekel
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the county of Amador refusing a new trial. The action was against a constable and his sureties to recover damages for the seizure and sale of property claimed by the plaintiffs. The facts necessary to explain the' point decided appear in the opinion.
1Per curiam
— It clearly appeared that the corporation defendant in the attachment suits had no interest in the property when the same was sold by the constable.
The court erred in holding and instructing the jury that a constable may attach and sell the property of a third person, without incurring any liability to such third person, provided he attaches and sells only “the right, title, and interest” of the defendant in the action. If a defendant has no leviable interest in property, the purchaser at a constable’s sale will acquire no interest. But it by no means follows that an officer can protect…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Neff v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tu-Vu Drive-In Corp. v. DaviesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Baker v. MillsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Metz v. SchweitzerUtah Supreme Court · 1892
- Tu-Vu Drive-In Corp. v. DaviesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967