Freeborn v. Norcross

49 Cal. 313
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1874
DocketNo. 3,895
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 49 Cal. 313 (Freeborn v. Norcross) 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
Freeborn v. Norcross, 49 Cal. 313 (Cal. 1874).

Opinion

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

This is an action to recover the possession of certain personal property, or the valve thereof in case a delivery cannot be had, and damages for the detention. The jury rendered a verdict for the value of the property, with “legal interest” thereon from the time of the seizure by the sheriff to the date of the verdict; and damages in the sum of $50.

Section 200 of the Practice Act (which was in force when the action was brought), authorizes the recovery of damages for the detention of personal property. But a party is not entitled to a gross sum for such damages and to interest upon the value of the property from the time it was taken. Interest in such case is given for damages, and if allowed in addition to a gross sum for damages, it would amount to double damages.

The alleged errors of law in the instructions given at the plaintiff’s request, cannot be reviewed, because neither the instructions nor any exceptions thereto, are presented by a bill of exceptions.

Cause remanded, with direction to modify the judgment so that the plaintiff shall recover the sum of $375, with interest thereon (the rate specified in Section 1,920 of the Civil Code), from the date of the judgment. Remittitur forthwith.

Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.

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

Related

Nahhas v. Browning
183 P. 442 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Tucker v. Hagerty
174 P. 908 (California Court of Appeal, 1918)
Reno v. Kingsbury
39 Mo. App. 240 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
Johnson v. Fraser
18 P. 48 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1888)
Schmidt v. Nunan
63 Cal. 371 (California Supreme Court, 1883)
Kelly v. McKibben
54 Cal. 192 (California Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Cal. 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeborn-v-norcross-cal-1874.