Otero v. Bullard, Figg & Co.

California Supreme Court

Otero v. Bullard, Figg & Co.

3 Cal. 188

DecidedJuly 15, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cal. 188 (Otero v. Bullard, Figg & Co.) 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

Otero v. Bullard, Figg & Co., 3 Cal. 188 (Cal. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

The objections to the declaration arise from matters of form, which are not the subject of demurrer. It is true, that in an action of detinue, it is usual to aver a bailment or finding; but the manner in which the defendant became possessed of the property, has always been held to be mere matter of inducement.

As to the description of the property, it is impossible for us to say whether it could have been more accurate or particular.

There was no error in overruling the demurrer, and the order ’ is affirmed.

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

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

The objections to the declaration arise from matters of form, which are not the subject of demurrer. It is true, that in an action of detinue, it is usual to aver a bailment or finding; but the manner in which the defendant became possessed of the property, has always been held to be mere matter of inducement.

As to the description of the property, it is impossible for us to say whether it could have been more accurate or particular.

There was no error in overruling the demurrer, and the order ’ is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cal. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otero-v-bullard-figg-co-cal-1853.