Carpenter v. Clark
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County, Hon. Richard Rising presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. There was no immediate delivery of the mules from House to Carpenter. The instructions given by the Court ignore the necessity of such immediate delivery. The change of possession must be exclusive and immediate.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County, Hon. Richard Rising presiding. The facts are stated in the Opinion. There was no immediate delivery of the mules from House to Carpenter. The instructions given by the Court ignore the necessity of such immediate delivery. The change of possession must be exclusive and immediate. (Chitty on Contracts, page 414, 6th American edition; Vance v. Boynton, 8 Cal. 562; Qheeney v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 119.) It must be immediate and continuous. ([Burlburd v. Bogardus, 10 Cal. 518 ; Bugles v. Marshall, 19 Cal. 320 ; JDoah v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Lewis, C. J., full Bench concurring.
This action was brought to recover possession of two mules which were taken by the defendant upon a writ of attachment issued out of the District Court for the County of Storey, against one E. M. House, who, it is claimed by the defendant, was the owner of the mules at the time of the attachment.
The principal facts disclosed by the record are as follows :
In the month of February, a.d. 1865, the plaintiff, Carpenter, purchased the mules in question, and at the same time delivered them *245to E. M. House, either upon an absolute contract of sale, or an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stevens v. IrwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Samuels v. GorhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dubois v. SpinksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Guthrie v. CarneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Feeley v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Clute v. SteeleNevada Supreme Court · 1871
- Reynolds v. BeckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904