Legal Opinion

Holly v. Heiskell

California Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1896No. Sac. No. 82PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Stanton L. Carter, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendant, upon the judgment-roll, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action is claim and delivery.

Appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because there is no averment in the complaint that respondent was the owner, or entitled to the possession, of the property sued for at the time the action was brought; and, under the authorities, the contention must be sustained. In a suit to recover personal property the complaint must show the ultimate fact that plaintiff was the owner or entitled to possession at the time of the commencement of the action; and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fredericks v. TracyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Williams v. AsheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Masterson v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Glass v. Basin & Bay State Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Kimball v. RedfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Byxbee v. DeweyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Bank of Woodland v. DuncanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API