Rhodes v. Patterson
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Where an order of court directed the sheriff to seize certain specific property, and this property proved not to belong to the defendant in the suit, the sheriff was held liable to the owner.
The owner of property has his remedy and the right of recovery, against any one, whether sheriff or not, unless it be held by legal process against himself.
Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.
The appellant’s counsel insists, that holding the property by a seizure, made by virtue of his office as sheriff, the defendant was not liable to be sued for it by another claimant; but the authorities cited will be found to apply to cases of technical replevin. The 2d chapter of the Practice Act very clearly contemplates that there may be more than one claimant to property, and as many suits as there are several claimants. See Laws, 535.
Nor can I conceive upon what sound principle a party should be denied the right of action for his property, and the right of recovery against any one, whether a sheriff or not, unless it be held by legal process against himself.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)