Goldstein v. Nunan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action of claim and delivery against the defendant, as sheriff, to recover possession of personal property. The evidence showed that prior to and during the year 1878, Jos. Barnett and Charles Goldstein, as partners, carried on the retail clothing business. Becoming insolvent, they effected a compromise with all of their creditors except three.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action of claim and delivery against the defendant, as sheriff, to recover possession of personal property. The evidence showed that prior to and during the year 1878, Jos. Barnett and Charles Goldstein, as partners, carried on the retail clothing business. Becoming insolvent, they effected a compromise with all of their creditors except three. In pursuance of the compromise agreement they turned over their store and stock of goods, including the property in…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
The verdict in favor of the plaintiff includes a finding that the goods subsequently attached by the defendant as sheriff were actually delivered to and continuously remained *544in the possession of the plaintiff. It is insisted by appellant that the fact that the vendor Goldstone was, a week after the sale, employed by plaintiff as a clerk, and continued in such employment for about a week, when he was discharged, establishes —as a matter of law—the sale to have been fraudulent. The case shows, and indeed it seems to be admitted by appellant, that the goods were actually delivered to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Godchaux v. MulfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by4 opinions
- McCaffey C. Co., Inc. v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Bucher v. AllenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Hilliker v. KuhnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Romero v. DesmaraisNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1889