Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Adams

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 13, 1941No. Crim. No. 611Published

1Concurrence

MARKS, J., Concurring.

I concur.

I concur, but wish to amplify one of the grounds of my concurrence.

Holmes was paid in full for all of his fruit. Mrs. Prescott could only claim a lien upon that fruit while it was in her possession under the provisions of section 3051 of the Civil Code. The lien was extinguished when she voluntarily delivered possession of the Holmes oranges to Photo (Civ. Code, sec. 2913) and was not revived when she regained possession of them. (Davis v. Young, 75 Cal. App. 359 [242 Pac. 743] ; Covington v. Grant, 82 Cal. App. 749 [256 Pac. 213] ; Lundblade v. Pierce, 95 Cal.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Jewett v. City Transfer & Storage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. C. I. T. Corp. v. Biltmore GarageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Covington v. GrantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Davis v. YoungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

1 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