Krewson & Co. v. Purdom
Oregon Supreme Court
Douglas County. Defendants appeal California and some other states hold that it is not necessary, in trover, for a party to plead it in order to entitle him to prove title in a third party. In replevin, the rule is otherwise. (2. Greenl. Ev., sec. 563.) In either case, however, if the defendant proves property in a third party, the plaintiff cannot recover.
Read the full summary
Douglas County. Defendants appeal California and some other states hold that it is not necessary, in trover, for a party to plead it in order to entitle him to prove title in a third party. In replevin, the rule is otherwise. (2. Greenl. Ev., sec. 563.) In either case, however, if the defendant proves property in a third party, the plaintiff cannot recover. (Lewis v. Morse, 20 Conn. 211; Loomis v. Green, 7 Me. 389; Roberts v. Wentworth, 5 Cush. 192.) If the sale of the wood from Gotardi & Co. to plaintiffs was not complete, but merely executory, and anything remained yet to be done to perfect…
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, J.
This appeal is from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the county of Douglas, rendered in an action brought by the respondents against the appellants for the conversion of certain cord-wood. The action was in the ordinary form to recover damages for the conversion of personal property. The answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and alleged that said cord-wood was the property of Herman and Eobert Aulauff, partners, under the firm name of Aulauff Brothers. The respondents, at the trial, attempted to establish that the wood in question originally belonged *566to some Italians,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Carver v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Young v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1912
- Pratt v. Northern Pacific Express Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1907
- Krewson v. PurdomOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Gissel v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.