Gee Chong Pong v. Harris
Before: Chipman
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
CHIPMAN, P. J.
The second amended complaint sets forth an action in two counts. The first is based upon the sale of two certain gold nuggets, one of the value of $135 and the other of the value of $75, “upon an understanding and agreement between plaintiffs and said Aaron Harris (defendant’s intestate) that plaintiffs should have a lien upon said personal property as security for the return thereof to plaintiffs or the payment to plaintiffs of the value thereof.” It is alleged “that said Aaron Harris never returned the said personal property or paid plaintiffs the value thereof, and ever since the said second day of September, 1914, said personal property has been held and possessed by said Aaron Harris and his estate,” and that at the time'of his death said Aaron Harris was indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $210 for said gold nuggets “and the estate of said deceased is still indebted to plaintiffs therefor. ’ ’
For a second cause of action it is alleged that, on September 2, 1914, “plaintiffs purchased of said Aaron Harris certain goods, wares, and merchandise, to wit, certain hams, and then and there paid said Aaron Harris cash in the sum of $15 therefor,” to be thereafter delivered, but “that said Aaron Harris never delivered the said hams to plaintiffs and plaintiffs have never received the same”; that at his death the said Harris was indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $15, no part of which has ever been paid and said estate is indebted therefor.
[216]
The prayer is for judgment for $225; “that $210 thereof be adjudged a lien on the said personal property; that said personal property be decreed to.be sold in satisfaction of said lien; that the said claim be allowed and approved and adjudged to be a valid claim against the said estate, and that said administratrix be directed to pay the same in due course of administration.”
The affidavit to the claim, which latter is the basis of the action, reads as follows:
“State of California,
County- of Plumas,—ss.
“Hook Hing Lung Co., whose foregoing claim is herewith presented to the'administratrix of said deceased,'being duly sworn, says that the amount thereof, to wit: the sum of two hundred and twenty-five ($225.00) dollars, is justly due to the said claimant; that no payments have been made thereon which are not credited, that there are no offsets to the same to the knowledge of said claimant.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)