Legal Opinion

South Beverly Wilshire Jewelry & Loan v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 29, 2004No. B172846PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, J.

In this case (1) a person voluntarily relinquished possession of his property under a consignment, (2) such property was then wrongfully transferred by the consignee to the possession of a third party who took it for value and without notice, and (3) the consignor could have perfected a security interest in the property but did not. Under those circumstances, the applicable rule is set out in Civil Code section 3543, which states that “[wjhere one of two innocent persons must suffer by the act of a third, he, by whose negligence it happened, must be the sufferer.”

This case…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Saltus & Saltus v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  2. Lunardi v. Great-West Life Assurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Carter v. RowleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  4. Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  5. Wurzl v. HollowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Regent Alliance Ltd. v. RabizadehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. Irving Nelkin & Co. v. South Beverly Hills Wilshire Jewelry & LoanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Regent Alliance Ltd. v. RabizadehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Tsasu LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API