Banning v. Marleau
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Walter Van Dyke, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in its opinion rendered upon the former appeal. (Banning v. Marleau, 101 Cal. 238.) The portion of the sixth instruction referred to in the opinion of the court is embodied in the first syllabus.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
This is an action to recover the possession of certain personal property consisting mostly of livestock which was on a ranch owned by the plaintiff. The jury found, for plaintiff, and defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.
The defendant was a constable, and claimed the property under certain writs of attachment in favor of W. H. Harbell and P. Hardy against one Joseph Hannon—defendant claiming that the property in question was the property of said Hahnom The nature of the case, the principal facts in it, and some of thd principles of law which should govern…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sukeforth v. LordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Mason v. VestalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Albertoli v. BranhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Banning v. MarleauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Grum v. BarneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Strong v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Austin v. WilcoxsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Bird v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Farmers National Bank v. PrattSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Calkins v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.