Miller v. Brigham
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, County of Colusa. The defendant and Crossin were partners in running a stage from Colusa to Wilbur Springs, and, as such, owned horses, stages, harness, barley, etc. Crossin sold out his interest to the plaintiff, who demanded to be let into possession of Crossin’s undivided interest in the property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, County of Colusa. The defendant and Crossin were partners in running a stage from Colusa to Wilbur Springs, and, as such, owned horses, stages, harness, barley, etc. Crossin sold out his interest to the plaintiff, who demanded to be let into possession of Crossin’s undivided interest in the property. The defendant refused, and this action was brought to recover possession of an undivided one-half of the property or the value thereof. The plaintiff recovered judgment for nine hundred and sixty dollars. The defendant appealed. The other…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
1. The plaintiff alleges that he is owner, and entitled to the possession of an undivided one-half of the chattels mentioned in the complaint. The defendant, in his answer, admits that he is in possession of the chattels, and alleges that he is the owner thereof. We think that the title of the plaintiff was sufficiently put in issue by the pleadings.
*6162. The findings are that the property in controversy lately belonged to a co-partnership firm, composed of the defendant and one Crossin, and that before the commencement of the action the latter “sold and conveyed to the plaintiff his…
2Cited by20 opinions
- County of San Luis Obispo v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Moropoulos v. C. H. & O. B. Fuller Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Hooper v. BarrantiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Driscoll v. DriscollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Blaker v. SandsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.