Davis v. Russell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San .Joaquin. Defendant appeals. The facts are set out in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
I. The Court erred in point of law in the instruction given at the request of plaintiff, and excepted to by defendants—because, if Davis did not sell the wheat to Barney, still the indorsement and delivery of the warehouse receipt did invest Barney with the title to the property. (Vide secs. 1459, 2991, Civil Code, Cal.; 8 Cal. 609.)
II. The indorsement and delivery of the warehouse receipt vested the title in Barney, and a hypothecation by Barney to an innocent pledgee would protect such pledgee from any action upon the part of Davis. ( Vide Horr v. Barker et al. 8 Cal. 609; Ghirardelli v.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Saltus & Saltus v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Thompson v. TolandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- McCauley v. FultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Kinder v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Naglee & Parrott v. LymanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Conrad v. FisherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Stroud v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Fowles v. National Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Frontier Milling & Elevator Co. v. Roy White Co-operative Mercantile Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1914
- Cavallaro v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.