Gould v. Scannell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth District. The answer simply denies that the defendant wrongfully detains the property, etc. and avers that it was the property of Lavalle, against whom the Sheriff had a writ of attachment., issued in the suit of Mills & Vantine v. Lavalle, and that the property was seized and hold by the defendant, Scannell, as Sheriff, in that suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth District. The answer simply denies that the defendant wrongfully detains the property, etc. and avers that it was the property of Lavalle, against whom the Sheriff had a writ of attachment., issued in the suit of Mills & Vantine v. Lavalle, and that the property was seized and hold by the defendant, Scannell, as Sheriff, in that suit. The Court below found, among other things, that said property was taken from the possession of defendant, Scannell, by the Coroner, by virtue of the proceedings in this action, and returned to the said Lavalle; and “ that the property…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Terry, C. J. concurring.
This action was brought to recover certain personal property. Ob the trial in the Superior Court, the plaintiff failed to appear, and liis complaint was dismissed, and the Court proceeded to render judgment for the defendant for the value of the pi’operty, upon a special finding that the same could not be returned. Afterwards, a motion was made in the Superior Court to set aside the judgment, upon the ground of some alleged irregularity in the manner of ascertaining the facts. But when this motion came up for hearing, the jdaintiff again failed to appear) and the Court…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wilson v. FullerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Tuggle v. MinorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Pico v. PicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Hayes v. MoffattMontana Supreme Court · 1928