Goodwin v. Garr
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Tuba. This was an action to recover the value of thirteen mules and six horses, attached by defendant, sheriff of Sutter county, as the property of one Ford. The defendant denied that the property belonged to the plaintiff, and also justified under the attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Tuba. This was an action to recover the value of thirteen mules and six horses, attached by defendant, sheriff of Sutter county, as the property of one Ford. The defendant denied that the property belonged to the plaintiff, and also justified under the attachment. On the trial, the plaintiff proved, by one Lynch, that he had been in possession of the stock for some few days before he employed witness to keep them; that he spoke to witness, and employed him to pasture the animals on his ranch, and a few days afterwards…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The only question in the case is, whether plaintiff, by his proof, made out a prima facie right to recover in the entire absence of any proof on the part of the defendant.
We think the proof ample to show title prima facie in plaintiff. Possession of personal property is prima facie evidence of ownership. 2. Cal. Rep., 373. The possession of the servant is the possession of the master. 1 Cal. R., 161.
In this case, the plaintiff had possession for some considerable time before the seizure, and exercised dominion over the property.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Steward v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Hare v. YoungIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
- Michaelson v. FishCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905