Young v. Poole

California Supreme Court

Young v. Poole

13 P. 492, 2 Cal. Unrep. 748

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 25, 1887

DocketNo. 9,472

StatusPublished

This text of 13 P. 492 (Young v. Poole) 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

Young v. Poole, 13 P. 492, 2 Cal. Unrep. 748 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

This action is to recover personal property levied upon as the property of Jonathan Kittredge. The plaintiff claims as purchaser from Kittredge. The negotiations for the sale were made in March, but the sale was not consummated until April 1st—the day on which summons was served on Kittredge. The levy of the execution was in September following. We think the undisputed facts show that the sale was not followed by immediate delivery, and an actual and continued change of possession, such as is required by section 3440, Civil Code.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered.

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

By the COURT.

This action is to recover personal property levied upon as the property of Jonathan Kittredge. The plaintiff claims as purchaser from Kittredge. The negotiations for the sale were made in March, but the sale was not consummated until April 1st—the day on which summons was served on Kittredge. The levy of the execution was in September following. We think the undisputed facts show that the sale was not followed by immediate delivery, and an actual and continued change of possession, such as is required by section 3440, Civil Code.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 P. 492, 2 Cal. Unrep. 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-poole-cal-1887.