Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Cal. 225

Hickman v. Alpaugh

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1862

California Supreme Court · decided 1862-07-01

The defendant, who was Sheriff of Tehama County, having process in his hands against the property of one Barrens, seized under this process certain cattle which were in the possession of the plaintiff, and for the recovery of this property, with damages, the action is brought.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The sale relied upon by the plaintiff, Hickman, of a portion of the property in controversy from U. J. Barrens to him took place in Oregon, and without the jurisdiction of the state of California; and therefore the said sale cannot he attacked by the defendant in this cause for an actual or legal fraud provided for by the statute of California relating to fraudulent conveyances.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gunderson v. Gunderson

““This charge was erroneous. There was no proof made as to the laws of Oregon, and in the absence of such proof the court should have presumed them to be the same as the laws of our own state. This rale applies to the statute law of the state as well as to the common law.” Hickman v. Alpaugh, 21 Cal. 226 , 227.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gunderson v. Gunderson

Relies on Norris v. Harris · Hoffman v. Carow · Robinson v. Dauchy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1956

11 state decisions

301862187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Field, C. J. concurring.

¶2On the trial of this action the Court gave the following charge to the jury: “ The sale relied upon by the plaintiff, Hickman, of a portion of the property in controversy from N. J. Farrens to him took place in Oregon, and without the jurisdiction of the State of California, and, therefore, the said sale cannot be attacked by the defendant in this cause for an actual or legal fraud provided for by the statute of California relating to fraudulent conveyances.” This charge was erroneous. There was no proof made as to the laws of Oregon, and in the absence of such proof the Court should have presumed them to be the same as the laws of our own State. This rule applies to the statute law of the State as well as to the common law. (Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 253, 254, and cases there cited; Leavenworth v. Brockway, 2 Hill, 201; Rob*227inson v. Dauchy, 3 Barb. 20; Hoffman v. Carew, 22 Wend. 322-324.)

¶3For this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

/21/cal/225 · .json · Public domain