Taylor v. Seymour
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
An officer, attaching goods under civil process, is entitled to notice of the claim of a third party to the goods, and a demand for them, or he is not liable in damages to such party for such seizure and detention.
Nor is his right to notice and demand affected by the fact that he had obtained indemnity before seizing the goods, for the notice of another’s claim to them, might materially affect the character of the indemnity which he might require.
A conversation between the claimant of the goods and the officer’s bailee, in which the former asserted that the goods were his, cannot be held as notice to the officer.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt. Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
We think that, as in the ease of Daumiel v. Gorham, 6 Cal., (Jan. Term, 1856,) the officer was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s claim to the goods, and a demand for them.
The fact that the officer had already obtained indemnity, will not affect this right. The notice of another’s claim to the goods might materially affect the character of the indemnity which an officer might require.
The conversation between Taylor and the constable’s bailee of the goods, cannot be held as notice to the constable.
Judgment affirmed.
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)