South Beverly Wilshire Jewelry & Loan v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
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
- Saltus & Saltus v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Lunardi v. Great-West Life Assurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Carter v. RowleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Wurzl v. HollowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Regent Alliance Ltd. v. RabizadehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Irving Nelkin & Co. v. South Beverly Hills Wilshire Jewelry & LoanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Regent Alliance Ltd. v. RabizadehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Tsasu LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2021