Garlick v. Bowers
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Kern. Replevin for a lot of wheat. The defendant, a sheriff, admitted the seizure, and justified under a writ of attachment issued against the vendor of the plaintiff. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
-Evidence of statements made by the vendor, after he had sold the property, was clearly inadmissible. (Paige v. O'Neil, 12 Cal. 496 ; Visher v. Webster, 13 Cal. 58; Cohn v. Mulford, 15 Cal. 50; Jones v. Morse, 36 Cal. 205 ; Whitney v. Durkin, 48 Cal. 462 ; Hutchings v. Castle, 48 Cal. 153.) The plaintiff had introduced evidence, which, if true, showed that the property had been sold and delivered to her before the vendor made the statements which were testified to by defendant’s witnesses, against the objection of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the statements of the vendor…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Paige v. O'NealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Visher v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Williams v. LerchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Cohn v. MulfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Jones v. MorseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Morris v. Purity Sausage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Dover v. ArchambeaultCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- President, Etc., of Bowdoin College v. MerrittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1896
- Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930