Tuohy v. Wingfield
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Tulare. Tuohy owned a flock of 1,583 sheep, and on the 8th day of December, 1873, entered into a contract with Deering by which D. was to take charge of the sheep, and provide them with pasture, and pay taxes on them, and shear them, for the period of two years.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Tulare. Tuohy owned a flock of 1,583 sheep, and on the 8th day of December, 1873, entered into a contract with Deering by which D. was to take charge of the sheep, and provide them with pasture, and pay taxes on them, and shear them, for the period of two years. When the sheep were sheared, the wool was to be delivered to Tuohy, who was to sell it and pay Deering one-lialf of the proceeds—part pay for his services. At the end of the term, the sheep were to be delivered to Tuohy, who, as further compensation for Deering’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The contract between the plaintiff and W. P. Leering did not divest the plaintiff of his title to the sheep and their increase. It was an employment by plaintiff of Leering to take care of his (plaintiff’s) property for reward. (Civil Code, sec. 1965.)
The contract was for the personal services of Leering, and if he permitted the sheep to be taken from him, or abandoned them daring the term, or delivered them to a stranger without the consent of plaintiff, the latter had the right to resume possession of his property in order to preserve it. (Bobinson v. Hass, 40 Cal. 474; Story on Bailments,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Oakley v. . MortonNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Bernal v. HoviousCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Robinson v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nat. Bank Etc. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Howell v. FosterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Finnie v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927