Byrnes v. Moore

29 P. 70, 93 Cal. 393, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 571
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 16, 1892
DocketNo. 13861
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 29 P. 70 (Byrnes v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Byrnes v. Moore, 29 P. 70, 93 Cal. 393, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 571 (Cal. 1892).

Opinion

Foote, C.

This action of claim and delivery was brought against a sheriff who had levied upon certain personal property under a writ of attachment at the suit of certain parties who were the creditors of the seller of the property to the plaintiffs.

The court below granted. a nonsuit, apparently upon the ground that the debtor of the attachment creditors had not made a sale of the property to the plaintiffs which would satisfy the provisions of section 3340 of the Civil Code, because the transfer of the property was not accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession.

Every case of the kind here involved has its own peculiar features, and must be determined on the particular facts which surround the given transaction or transfer.

Carefully examining all the evidence in this case, we are of opinion that it was of such a character as not to render it clear, as matter of law, that no evidence existed tending to show a transfer which would be good under the statute.

Therefore, as it seems to us, the question was one of fact which should have been permitted to go to the jury for determination.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be reversed.

Vancliee, C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are reversed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Related

Demers v. Sutherland
4 P.2d 187 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
McCaffey C. Co., Inc. v. Bank of America
294 P. 45 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Sparling v. Stephens
189 P. 818 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Hassell v. Bunge
139 P. 800 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Estate of Chevallier
113 P. 130 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Rosenberg Bros. Co. v. Ross
93 P. 284 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Castle v. Sibley
82 P. 1067 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Stratton v. Burr
54 P. 735 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Cameron v. Calberg
31 P. 530 (California Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 P. 70, 93 Cal. 393, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrnes-v-moore-cal-1892.