Richards v. Schroder

California Supreme Court

Richards v. Schroder

10 Cal. 431

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Cal. 431 (Richards v. Schroder) 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

Richards v. Schroder, 10 Cal. 431 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The referee’s report shows conclusively that there was no delivery of the goods in question under the bill of sale from Boring to plaintiff. They continued in the possession of Webster, [435]*435who was Boring’s bailee, and who was directed by Boring to pay to plaintiff the amount of his claim against Boring, out of money arising from sales of the property.

The facts reported bring the transaction fully within the fifteenth section of the Statute of Frauds, and a new trial was properly refused.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The referee’s report shows conclusively that there was no delivery of the goods in question under the bill of sale from Boring to plaintiff. They continued in the possession of Webster, [435]*435who was Boring’s bailee, and who was directed by Boring to pay to plaintiff the amount of his claim against Boring, out of money arising from sales of the property.

The facts reported bring the transaction fully within the fifteenth section of the Statute of Frauds, and a new trial was properly refused.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Cal. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-schroder-cal-1858.