Daumiel v. Gorham
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District. Action of trespass against the defendant as Sheriff of San Francisco County, for seizing goods of plaintiff. The defence set up is, that the goods were seized under three attachments against Henry Meiggs; that the property when seized was the property and in the possession of said Meiggs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District. Action of trespass against the defendant as Sheriff of San Francisco County, for seizing goods of plaintiff. The defence set up is, that the goods were seized under three attachments against Henry Meiggs; that the property when seized was the property and in the possession of said Meiggs. The evidence shows that the plaintiff had ¡purchased and paid for the property described in Ms complaint, and had stored them in Meiggs’ mill, where a portion of them were proved to have been seized by the defendant, but not sold or removed.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.
Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
Where the goods of a third person are mixed with the property, or in the apparent possession of the judgment debtor, a sheriff who levies upon them, supposing them to belong to the defendant in execution, is not liable as a trespasser ab initio. In order to charge him it is necessary to show a notice and demand of the goods, and a delay or refusal to deliver.
The Court below erred in instructing the jury that “the sheriff was a trespasser, and that they were to find the value of the goods.” This was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Paige v. O'NealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- People ex rel. Rynerson v. KelseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- George H. Fuller Desk Co. v. McDadeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Vose & Co. v. StickneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- Perkins v. BarnesNevada Supreme Court · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.