Sharon v. Shaw
Nevada Supreme Court
Appealed from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Lyon County, Hon. W. Haydon presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. The verdict was against the weight of evidence. The proof was of a delivery which, although not made precisely at the time of delivery of bill of sale, was yet immediate, as that term is used in the statute.
Read the full summary
Appealed from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Lyon County, Hon. W. Haydon presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. The verdict was against the weight of evidence. The proof was of a delivery which, although not made precisely at the time of delivery of bill of sale, was yet immediate, as that term is used in the statute. Upon what constitutes immediate delivery, see the following cases: Chaffin v. Boub, 14 Cal. 386; Lay v. Neville, 25 Cal. 552; Goodschaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 316. A delivery to the plaintiff’s agent was as effectual as to himself. (Goodivin v. Garr, 8…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Lewis, C. J., Beatty, J., concurring.
This action was brought for the purpose of recovering possession of certain personal property from the defendant, who is the Sheriff of the County of Lyon, and who justifies under a writ of attachment issued out of the District Court of his county. The plaintiff claiming title from Tregloan, the person against whom the attachment was issued, introduced in evidence a bill of sale from him of *291all the personal property now in controversy, dated October 31st, a.d. 1865, and also a deed bearing date June 1st, a.d. 1865, by which certain real estate…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cummings v. ChevrierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. RossSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Eustis v. City of HenriettaTexas Supreme Court · 1897
- Clark v. PorterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Comaita v. KyleNevada Supreme Court · 1885