Pacheco v. Hunsacker
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Seventh District. Complaint avers that defendant, on the 16¡ h of August, 1858, seized a quantity of wheat “in the straw,” amounting to thirty tuns of wheat, when prepared and ready for market, and took it from the possession of plaintiff, the owner.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Seventh District. Complaint avers that defendant, on the 16¡ h of August, 1858, seized a quantity of wheat “in the straw,” amounting to thirty tuns of wheat, when prepared and ready for market, and took it from the possession of plaintiff, the owner. Answer admits the seizure, and avers, that it was done by defendant, in his capacity of Sheriff, by virtue of a writ of attachment, issued at the suit of Dutil v. V. Andeque; that he sold the undivided two-thirds interest in the wheat on the 3d September, as perishable property, for four hundred and ninety-five dollars) that, at…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
This action was trespass against the defendant as Sheriff, for seizing and taking away certain grain, the property of plaintiff.
1. The first error assigned is that the Court below ordered a special jury to be summoned, instead of trying the case by the regular panel. But there is nothing in this objection. The Sheriff being the party interested, there was an obvious propriety, if the plaintiff insisted on it, in trying the case by a jury, in *124the selection of which, he had no agency. The statute, (Wood’s Digest, Tit. Jurors, 512, Sec. 16,) seems to leave the ordering of a trial jury to the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- People v. FellowsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Davis v. McFarlaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Lay v. NevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864