Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Cal. 393

Byrnes v. Moore

California Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-02-16

<p>Transfer of Personal Property — Statute of Frauds — Change of Possession — Question of Fact—Nonsuit. —The question whether a transfer of personal property has been accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession is to be determined on the particular facts which surround the given transaction or transfer; and where the evidence is of such a character as not to render it clear, as matter of law, that no evidence existed tending to show a transfer which would be good under the statute, the question is one of fact for the determination of the jury, and it is error for the court to grant a nonsuit.</p>

Applies CA CIV § 3340

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-02-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1931

10 state decisions

4018921900191019201930decided

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 →

Foote, C.

¶1This action of claim and delivery was brought against a sheriff who had levied upon certain personal property under a writ of attachment at the suit of certain parties who were the creditors of the seller of the property to the plaintiffs.

¶2The court below granted. a nonsuit, apparently upon the ground that the debtor of the attachment creditors had not made a sale of the property to the plaintiffs which would satisfy the provisions of section 3340 of the Civil Code, because the transfer of the property was not accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession.

¶3Every case of the kind here involved has its own peculiar features, and must be determined on the particular facts which surround the given transaction or transfer.

¶4Carefully examining all the evidence in this case, we are of opinion that it was of such a character as not to render it clear, as matter of law, that no evidence existed tending to show a transfer which would be good under the statute.

¶5Therefore, as it seems to us, the question was one of fact which should have been permitted to go to the jury for determination.

¶6We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be reversed.

¶7Vancliee, C., concurred.

The Court.

¶8For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are reversed.

¶9Hearing in Bank denied.

/93/cal/393 · .json · Public domain