O'Connor v. Blake
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. In the case of Otis v. Barrett, the Constable, in his return on the attachment, stated that he had attached the right, title, and interest of the defendant in the property, the same being then in his possession. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, C. J., Action against a Constable to recover the possession of per-sonal property taken by him under an attachment. Trial by the Court, judgment for defendant, and new trial denied.
*314The defendant’s answer contains three separate and distinct defenses. First—That the property in question belonged to one Stuart, and that the defendant held the same by virtue of an attachment against Stuart, at the suit of Heywood & Harmon ; second—That there was a former suit pending between one Barrett, plaintiff’s vendor, and defendant to recover the same goods; and third—That the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McCormick v. BarnumNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Ritter v. ScannellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Sprague v. ShedNew York Supreme Court · 1812
3Cited by19 opinions
- Rodney v. GibbsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Ayres v. BensleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Dollins & Adams v. Pollock & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Aigeltinger v. WhelanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Bolander v. GentryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.