Legal Opinion

Norcross v. Nunan

California Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 1882No. 7,279PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal Tby the defendant from a judgment of the Twenty-third District Court, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order of the Superior Court of said city and county, denying a motion for a new trial. Thornton, J., of the District Court; Wilson, J., of the Superior Court. Action for the recovery of .personal property or its value, and of damages for its detention. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Read the full summary

Appeal Tby the defendant from a judgment of the Twenty-third District Court, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order of the Superior Court of said city and county, denying a motion for a new trial. Thornton, J., of the District Court; Wilson, J., of the Superior Court. Action for the recovery of .personal property or its value, and of damages for its detention. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. After decision of this case in department, a petition for hearing in bank was filed, but the same was denied.

1Opinion of the Court

Myrick, J.:

This was an action for the recovery of personal property or its value, and for damages for its detention. But the plaintiff did not claim the delivery of the property to him before judgment. The defendant, Sheriff, justified under a writ of attachment and an execution.

1. Conceding that the Court below was correct in refusing to admit the writ of attachment in evidence because of the defect in the affidavit in stating that the amount claimed was due on a contract, without stating whether it was due upon either an express or 'implied contract, yet the defendant was entitled to have…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Savacool v. BoughtonNew York Supreme Court · 1830

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Arrieta v. MahonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Crenshaw v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Woods v. LattaMontana Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Wilde v. RawlesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
  5. Blumaur-Frank Drug Co. v. BranstetterIdaho Supreme Court · 1895

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

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

Powered by the Exa API