American Multigraph Sales Co. v. Charles W. Cradick Co.

California Court of Appeal

American Multigraph Sales Co. v. Charles W. Cradick Co.

279 P. 191, 99 Cal. App. 589, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 5

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 24, 1929

DocketDocket No. 5347.

StatusPublished

This text of 279 P. 191 (American Multigraph Sales Co. v. Charles W. Cradick Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Multigraph Sales Co. v. Charles W. Cradick Co., 279 P. 191, 99 Cal. App. 589, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 5 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*591 the defendant, who may have his action thereon.” Section 520 of the same code provides that the notice, undertaking and affidavit originally handed to the sheriff, together with his proceedings thereon shall be delivered to the clerk within twenty days after the property is taken. That the plaintiff here sought and was allowed a provisional remedy there can be no doubt. That the first-quoted section provides a manner and method whereby the defendant may obtain relief in such a case as this is equally free from doubt. That the defendant would also have an action against the plaintiff for the wrongful taking and conversion of the property is the holding in Tapscott v. Lyon, 103 Cal. 297 [37 Pac. 225], involving a similar dismissal after answer filed. But it must be apparent that after the dismissal of the action the court was -without authority to render a judgment in favor of the defendant, for the reason that nothing was therein pending.

Judgment reversed.

Craig, J., concurred.

Works, P. J., being absent, did not participate in this opinion. ■

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*591 the defendant, who may have his action thereon.” Section 520 of the same code provides that the notice, undertaking and affidavit originally handed to the sheriff, together with his proceedings thereon shall be delivered to the clerk within twenty days after the property is taken. That the plaintiff here sought and was allowed a provisional remedy there can be no doubt. That the first-quoted section provides a manner and method whereby the defendant may obtain relief in such a case as this is equally free from doubt. That the defendant would also have an action against the plaintiff for the wrongful taking and conversion of the property is the holding in Tapscott v. Lyon, 103 Cal. 297 [37 Pac. 225], involving a similar dismissal after answer filed. But it must be apparent that after the dismissal of the action the court was -without authority to render a judgment in favor of the defendant, for the reason that nothing was therein pending.

Judgment reversed.

Craig, J., concurred.

Works, P. J., being absent, did not participate in this opinion. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 P. 191, 99 Cal. App. 589, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-multigraph-sales-co-v-charles-w-cradick-co-calctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack