Imperial Valley Auto Co. v. Toney
This text of 190 P. 1043 (Imperial Valley Auto Co. v. Toney) 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.
Opinion
Action brought by plaintiff to recover possession of personal property. Judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff appeals therefrom. The judgment-roll is the only record before us.
The answer filed by defendant did not claim a return of the property. Indeed, there is nothing in the pleadings or findings to indicate that the property was delivered to the plaintiff, or was not all the time held in possession of the defendant. Under such circumstances, that part of the judgment which grants to the defendant affirmative relief cannot be sustained, except as a judgment for costs. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 627, 667; Banning v. Marleau, 101 Cal. 238, [35 Pac. 772].)
It is ordered that the judgment be modified by striking therefrom that part thereof which provides that defendant recover the described automobile, or, in ease delivery thereof cannot be had, that defendant have and recover the sum of $405.90. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.
Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
190 P. 1043, 47 Cal. App. 541, 1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imperial-valley-auto-co-v-toney-calctapp-1920.