Legal Opinion

Hisler v. Carr

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1868PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Santa Cruz County. Defendants justified under the levy of an attachment issued in the case of Besse v. Pinkham., in a Justice’s Court, the defendant in which action was the vendor to plaintiff of the property in question. Defendant Carr, acting as Special Constable, made the levy under the attachment. In the Court below, plaintiff had judgment for eight hundred and fourteen dollars, and costs.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Santa Cruz County. Defendants justified under the levy of an attachment issued in the case of Besse v. Pinkham., in a Justice’s Court, the defendant in which action was the vendor to plaintiff of the property in question. Defendant Carr, acting as Special Constable, made the levy under the attachment. In the Court below, plaintiff had judgment for eight hundred and fourteen dollars, and costs. Each party moved for a new trial, the motions for which were heard upon settled statements, and denied. Each pai’ty appealed from the judgment…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Rhodes, J. :

The pleadings are not contained in the transcript, but it is therein stated that this is an action of replevin in the detinet for a quantity of oats, barley, and potatoes.

It appears from each statement on motion for a new trial, that the plaintiff had purchased the property, and had taken possession of the oats and barley, and was engaged in digging and sacking the potatoes, when the defendants took the property, under an attachment against the property of the plaintiff’s vendor.

The defendants contend that they should have been allowed to deduct the expenses incurred…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Homan v. BrinckerhoffCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
  2. Hamer v. HathawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Davis v. MarshallNew York Supreme Court · 1852

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gow v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Gans v. WoolfolkMontana Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Wigmore v. BuellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Marquis v. IrelandSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
  5. Kern Valley Bank v. KoehnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910

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

Powered by the Exa API