Munroe v. Thomas
5 Cal. 470
Opinion
Murray, C. J. concurred.
A ferry is a franchise, and is not the subject of levy, sale, or delivery, under execution. It involves a personal trust granted by the sovereign, upon conditions imposed upon the grantee alone, and his liability cannot be removed by substitution.
The term “ appurtenances,” used in the return of levy by the Sheriff, is too general, vague, and indefinite, to comprehend in its meaning any personal property as the subject of levy; it therefore passed nothing by the sale.
The order is reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Munroe v. Thomas, 5 Cal. 470 (Cal. 1855).
5 Cal. 470 (Munroe v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People Ex Rel. Spiers v. Lawley
119 P. 1089 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Kenniff v. Caulfield
73 P. 803 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Evans v. Kroutinger
72 P. 882 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1903)
Gregory v. Blanchard
33 P. 199 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Hackett & Multnomah Ry. Co. v. Wilson & Montgomery
6 P. 652 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1885)
Montgomery v. Multnomah Railway Co.
11 Or. 344 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1884)
In re Scott
11 F. 133 (D. California, 1880)
Coburn v. Ames
52 Cal. 385 (California Supreme Court, 1877)
People ex rel. Jenkins v. Duncan
41 Cal. 507 (California Supreme Court, 1871)
Lippencott v. Allander
27 Iowa 460 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1869)
Wood v. Truckee Turnpike Co.
24 Cal. 474 (California Supreme Court, 1864)