Arzaga v. Villalba
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The-facts are stated, in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
This was an action for the recovery of personal property and damages. The plaintiff obtained judgment for the possession of the property, or its value in the sum of $350, and for the sum of $530 damages.
1. The defendant contends that there is no evidence that justifies the award of damages. And it is quite true that there is no evidence of actual damage (the property itself having been returned) beyond a small sum expended in pursuit of the property. But “in any action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppres*192sion, fraud,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kelly v. McKibbenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Berson v. NunanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Brichman v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Wood v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Doyle v. CallaghanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Baxter v. Royal Indemnity CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973
- Haigler v. DonnellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Faulkner v. First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Siminoff v. Jas. H. Goodman & Co. BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Ray v. NavarreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.