Floyd v. Riskin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
Plaintiff commenced a claim and delivery action against defendant to recover possession of a valuable pearl necklace. The action was commenced on June 1, 1936, and on the same day the sheriff took possession of the necklace under proper legal process. The return of the necklace to defendant was not required within the statutory period and on June 9, 1936, it was delivered to plaintiff. In defendant’s answer, filed June 20th, he did not claim a return of the necklace, but asked that plaintiff take nothing by her complaint and that he recover costs of suit. With his answer defendant filed a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pico v. PicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Banning v. MarleauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Lee v. De La MotteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Imperial Valley Auto Co. v. ToneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920