Ghio v. Cline

NOURSE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against the defendant, the sheriff of Los Angeles County, in an action of claim and delivery for the recovery of a fishing boat and equipment, held by the sheriff under a writ of attachment.

The facts are that the boat, which was built and equipped at Sausalito, was sailed to San Pedro harbor by the father of plaintiff, where it was used for fishing purposes, partly by the father, .but chiefly by the plaintiff. The father was indebted to three different persons who each assigned their claims to Rauer’s Law

&

Collection Company, a corporation, for collection. This company commenced three separate actions in the superior court of Los Angeles County against both father and son. Three separate writs of attachment were issued, and the sheriff, acting under the instructions of the company, attached and took into his possession the boat with its equipment. A third party claim was filed by the son, who, some eight months thereafter, commenced this action. In the attachment suits referred to judgment went against the father, but the son obtained a judgment of non-suit in his favor in each ease. In this proceeding judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the return of the property attached or its value, which was fixed at two thousand dollars, and for damages for the detention and deterioration, fixed at $884. It was found that all the property had been delivered to the plaintiff immediately after the action was commenced except one dragnet, the value of which was found to be ninety dollars, and judgment was given for this amount in addition to the two thousand dollars found to be the total value of all the property taken.

By way of defense the sheriff relied upon the estoppel of plaintiff to claim the property and damages arising out of his statements, -made to the assignors of the attaching credi

[264]

tor, that the father was the actual owner of the boat. The trial court found that these statements had been made for the purpose of obtaining credit and extension of time upon the indebtedness of the father, but that neither such credit nor extension of time was obtained by reason of the statements. It also found that they had been communicated to the attaching creditor, that it relied upon them when the instructions were given to the sheriff to levy the attachments, but that such statements were not made by plaintiff with the intention of inducing the defendant or the attaching creditor to levy the attachments on the property.