Fitzgerald v. Gorham
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth Judicial District. This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant, Sheriff of the County of San Francisco, for taking and carrying away, on or about the 20th of June, ‘1854, the goods in a certain store, No. 102 on Battery street, in the City of San Francisco, valued at $6,000. The material facts in the case were these: The goods ' originally belonged to Samuel J. Josephs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth Judicial District. This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant, Sheriff of the County of San Francisco, for taking and carrying away, on or about the 20th of June, ‘1854, the goods in a certain store, No. 102 on Battery street, in the City of San Francisco, valued at $6,000. The material facts in the case were these: The goods ' originally belonged to Samuel J. Josephs. On or before the 22d of May, 1854, they were attached by the Sheriff, as the property of Josephs, in a suit against him, at the instance'of Horton & Co., for $6,000.…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
By the 15th section of the Statute of Frauds of this State, it is made conclusive evidence of fraud in the sale of goods, unless the sale is “accompanied by an immediate delivery, and be followed by an actual and continued change of possession .”
In this case there was, at the most, a mere constructive *291change of possession, Josephs was continued in charge and control over the goods; and although the sale to the plaintiffs was in good faith, and Josephs was in like good faith their agent on clerk, jet the very case…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Godchaux v. MulfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864