Legal Opinion

Harris v. Burns

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1875No. 3946PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Frederick Packard was indebted to J. C. Morrison in the sum of about seven hundred dollars, and Morrison brought an action on the debt and procured a writ of attachment which was placed in the hands of the defendant Burns, who was the sheriff of Los Angeles County.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Frederick Packard was indebted to J. C. Morrison in the sum of about seven hundred dollars, and Morrison brought an action on the debt and procured a writ of attachment which was placed in the hands of the defendant Burns, who was the sheriff of Los Angeles County. The writ was issued on the 26th day of July, 1870. Packard had been keeping a saloon, but on the 15th day of July, 1870, had sold his saloon, the liquors, and everything contained in the saloon, to the plaintiff Harris. The plaintiffs were…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

The court below instructed the jury as follows: “The single fact, of a sale of all of Packard’s goods, on credit for the greater portion of the purchase-money, when he was irretrievably insolvent, is conclusive as to the intent to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors.”

This instruction cannot be supported. The question of *142fraudulent intent is a question of fact; it is so declared by-statute. “The question of fraudulent intent in all cases arising under the provisions of this act shall be deemed a question of fact and not of law.” The instruction in effect took…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. MoanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

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

Powered by the Exa API