Kane v. Desmond
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 defendant was sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, and the action was brought to recover the property or its value. The additional facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
The defendant seized the piano in controversy in this case from the possession of the plaintiff, by an execution, issued in favor of A. L. Day v. Thomas Kane, and sold it at execution sale as the property of Kane to satisfy the execution. Thomas Kane was the husband of the plaintiff. On the trial of the case the court found the plaintiff was, at the time of the seizure and sale, the sole and exclusive owner of the property in her own right, and entitled to its possession, and that her husband had no right or title to it. The seizure of the property was, therefore, wrongful (Wellman v.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jolley v. FoltzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Peck v. BrummagimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Dow v. Gould & Curry Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1867
- Lowe v. AlexanderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Van Pelt v. LittlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Estate of SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Cullen v. BisbeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Antilla v. Justice's Court of Big River Twp.California Supreme Court · 1930
- Eltzroth v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Wilhoit v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.