Murphy v. Mulgrew
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
Plaintiff claims to have purchased two certain racehorses from her husband, Wyman Murphy, on January 11, 1890. On November 16, 1891, the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Sonoma, took possession of the horses under a writ of attachment in favor of the Santa Rosa Bank, and against the husband, Wyman Murphy. The sheriff refusing to return the *550possession to plaintiff, upon demand, she brought this action to recover the property. The appeal is from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial.
1. The main question here presented is, do the facts disclosed by the record support the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cahoon v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Blake v. GravesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Etchepare v. AguirreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Williams v. LerchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Morgan v. BallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Viner v. UntrechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Baxter v. Royal Indemnity CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973
- Dixon v. DixonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
- George v. PierceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hays v. WindsorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.