Edwards v. Sonoma Valley Bank

59 Cal. 148
California Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1881·No. No. 7,094·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

By Court:

1. The defendant was a creditor of A. S. Edwards from a date prior to the execution of the bill of sale by him, and to any attempted delivery to'his vendee of the property subsequently levied upon under the execution issued upon the judgment in favor of defendant against said A. S. Edwards. Assuming a delivery and change of possession to have occurred before the levy of the execution, the sale of A. S. Edwards was nevertheless void, as against defendant, if not accompanied by an immediate delivery, followed by an actual and continued change of possession. (Watson v. Rodgers, 53 Cal. 401.)

2. The Court below found as a fact (although the finding is among the conclusions of law) that there was not an immediate delivery or continued change of possession by and from A. S. Edwards to Harasthy. We can not say that this finding is not sustained by the evidence, or that it is contradicted by, or can not co-exist with, the probative facts found.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Edwards v. Sonoma Valley Bank, 59 Cal. 148 (Cal. 1881).

59 Cal. 148 (Edwards v. Sonoma Valley Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jessen v. Peterson, Nelson & Co.
123 P. 219 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Western Mining Supply Co. v. Quinn
105 P. 732 (Montana Supreme Court, 1909)
Johnson v. Emery
86 P. 869 (Utah Supreme Court, 1906)
Walters v. Ratliff
1900 OK 86 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1900)
Adams v. Weaver
48 P. 972 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Autrey v. Bowen
7 Colo. App. 408 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)
Rohrbough v. Johnson
40 P. 37 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Bryan v. Tormey
21 P. 725 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Bath v. Valdez
11 P. 724 (California Supreme Court, 1886)