Meyer v. Larkin

California Supreme Court

Meyer v. Larkin

3 Cal. 403

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Cal. 403 (Meyer v. Larkin) 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

Meyer v. Larkin, 3 Cal. 403 (Cal. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.

From the facts as found, it is evident that the foreigner Wittinger, was the employee of Hastinger, and not of the partnership ; consequently Hastinger alone was liable to pay the license tax. It follows, that the sheriff should have sold only the interest of Hastinger, and therefore, in selling the whole claim, and dispossessing the plaintiff, he was guilty of a trespass, for which the action was properly brought.

The judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.

From the facts as found, it is evident that the foreigner Wittinger, was the employee of Hastinger, and not of the partnership ; consequently Hastinger alone was liable to pay the license tax. It follows, that the sheriff should have sold only the interest of Hastinger, and therefore, in selling the whole claim, and dispossessing the plaintiff, he was guilty of a trespass, for which the action was properly brought.

The judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cal. 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-larkin-cal-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack