Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Cal. 492

Morgan v. Miller

California Supreme Court

Decided January 6, 1881

California Supreme Court · decided 1881-01-06

<p>Sale of Cattle—Delivery and Change of Possession—Fraud as to Creditors.—H., having cattle running at large with those of D., his tenant, sold them to the plaintiff, and the cattle were driven up into a corral, where H. said to the plaintiff, ‘ * Here are your cows that you bought;” thereupon the plaintiff requested B. to take care of the cattle, and pasture them for her, and B. agreeing to do so, the cattle were turned back into the pasture.</p> <p>Held, that there was am immediate delivery and actual change of possession, and that the sale was not void as to creditors.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-01-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1934

4 state decisions

20188118901900191019201930decided

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 →

Thornton, J.:

¶1This action was brought to recover damages for an unlawful conversion of plaintiff’s cattle. On the trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they appealed from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Appellants urge that they are entitled to a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence.

¶2It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff purchased the cattle sued for from one Higgins. The defendant, Miller, was Sheriff of the County of Ventura, and, as such Sheriff, levied upon the cattle in controversy by virtue of a writ of execution issued upon a judgment recovered against Higgins by Daly and Rogers, in the District Court for Ventura County. It is contended on behalf of appellants that the evidence shows that the sale to the plaintiff was void as to Daly and Rogers, for the reason that it was not accompanied by an immediate delivery, and followed by an actual and continued change of possession—that, therefore, the verdict is. *493not sustained by the evidence, and it should be set aside and a new trial granted. We have examined the testimony, and are of opinion that it sustains the verdict, and that there was no error in the ruling of the court below.

¶3Judgment and order affirmed.

¶4Sharpsteih and Myrick, JJ., concurred.

/62/cal/492 · .json · Public domain