Daumiel v. Gorham

6 Cal. 43
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1856·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

Where the goods of a third person are mixed with the property, or in the apparent possession of the judgment debtor, a sheriff who levies upon them, supposing them to belong to the defendant in execution, is not liable as a trespasser ab initio. In order to charge him it is necessary to show a notice and demand of the goods, and a delay or refusal to deliver.

The Court below erred in instructing the jury that “the sheriff was a trespasser, and that they were to find the value of the goods.” This was virtually withdrawing the case from the jury, and assigning either as a conclusion of law, that the officer was primarily liable, or as a conclusion of fact from the testimony, that a demand and refusal had been proved, about which there was much contradictory evidence.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

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

Daumiel v. Gorham, 6 Cal. 43 (Cal. 1856).

6 Cal. 43 (Daumiel v. Gorham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

George H. Fuller Desk Co. v. McDade
45 P. 694 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
People ex rel. Rynerson v. Kelsey
34 Cal. 470 (California Supreme Court, 1868)
Perkins v. Barnes
3 Nev. 557 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1867)
Vose & Co. v. Stickney
8 Minn. 75 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1862)
Paige v. O'Neal
12 Cal. 483 (California Supreme Court, 1859)