Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Cal. 454

Helm v. Dumars

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1853

California Supreme Court · decided 1853-10-15

' This action was brought for the recovery of three yoke of oxen, or their value, which the plaintiff laid at $800. The facts as found by the court, to whom the case was submitted without a jury, are substantially as follows :— . On the 24th March last, the plaintiff sold to one Fuller a lot of oxen for $1000, $200 of which were paid down, and Fuller with one Craig as surety, gave their note for the remaining $800.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1921

3 state decisions

1018531860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

¶2Some of the conclusions of law attained by the court below may properly be complained of as erroneous, but a judgment which is right will not be reversed, because it was rendered upon a wrong reason.

¶3From the facts found, the plaintiff made an absolute sale of the property to Fuller, with such a right of property as was subject to execution.

¶4*457If the plaintiff intended to retain any lien upon the property to secure the balance of the purchase-money, as is shown by the finding, such purpose was not carried out so as to make an effective lien. There was no such agreement in writing, nor did the plaintiff as mortgagee retain possession. The property was in the use, and under the complete control and direction, of Fuller, and to try to escape the legal consequences of this condition, by showing that the property was in the possession of Fuller’s hired servant, as agent or trustee, would be an attempt to evade the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/3/cal/454 · .json · Public domain