Stephens v. Hallstead

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1881 No. No. 7,590Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a sheriff's justification for seizing property under a writ of attachment and execution is sufficient to defeat a plaintiff's claim of ownership when the transfer of that property lacked the required immediate delivery and continued change of possession. The court further held that findings regarding such lack of possession are within the issues joined by a general denial and justification, even if specific allegations of actual fraud are disregarded as surplusage.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings regarding a lack of change of possession were within the issues joined by the pleadings.
Whether the defendant was required to specifically plead constructive fraud to challenge the validity of the plaintiff's bill of sale.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings of fact.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The execution of said bill of sale was not followed by an immediate delivery of said cattle, and was not followed by an actual and continued change of possession of said cattle”

“We think the finding was within the issue joined on the justification pleaded.”

“In our judgment, that portion of the answer, styled a defense of actual fraud, may be disregarded as surplusage.”

Synopsis

Action to Recover Personal Property—Justification—Fraud—Answer—Pleading—Burden of Proof—Evidence.—In an action for the recovery of personal property, the defendant in his answer, after denying plaintiff’s ownership, justified the taking under an attachment (followed by a judgment and execution) against one F., the plaintiff’s vendor, who, it was alleged, was at the time of the taking the owner and in possession of the property; and further alleged that the claim of the plaintiff was based upon a pretended transfer of the property to him by F., and that this transfer—as was known to the plaintiff—was made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of F. The Court did not find upon this last allegation; but, besides finding the other facts alleged in the answer, found that the sale from F. to the plaintiff was not followed by an immediate delivery, or by an actual and continued change of possession; and on appeal it was contended that the issue of fraud tendered by the defense was one of actual and not of constructive fraud; and that there was no finding upon the issue actually tendered, but a finding of a constructive fraud only.

Held, that the finding was within the issue made by the plea of justification. When plaintiff showed a bill of sale from F., the defendant, by showing the matters pleaded in justification, put upon the plaintiff the burden of showing an actual delivery and continued change of possession; that he was not required in this defense to plead anything as to the nature or origin of the title of the plaintiff; and that his allegation on this point might be disregarded as surplusage.

Thornton, J.: This is an action to recover possession of twenty-six milch cows, eighteen calves, a bull, etc., and damages for their detention, alleged by the plaintiff to have been owned and possessed by him on the 18th of June, 1880, on which day, it is averred, they were taken from his possession by the defendant, and have since that day been, by the defendant, detained from him.

The defendant answered the complaint, and denied each and every allegation thereof, except that “ he took possession of the cattle described in the plaintiff’s complaint, and still retains possession of said cattle.” And for a defense defendant averred that he was on the day last named, and since has been, and still is, the duly elected and acting Sheriff of the County of Plumas; that on that day, and for a long time prior thereto, John Fagniani was the owner and in possession and entitled to the possession of the cattle described in the complaint; that on the day above named he, as Sheriff of the County of Plumas, levied on, seized, and took into his possession, and from the possession of Fagniani, the cattle above mentioned, by virtue of a writ of attachment issued out of the Superior Court of the County of Plumas, in a case therein pending, wherein one H. B. Abbott was plaintiff and Fagniani was defendant, in obedience to the mandate of said writ; that thereafter, on the 18th day of July, 1880, judgment was rendered in said case in favor of Abbott and against Fagniani; that execution was duly issued thereon against the property of Fagniani, which execution was directed to him as Sheriff aforesaid, and that he now holds said cattle by virtue of this execution. So far this is a justification by the defendant of his acts as Sheriff. Then follow the additional averments— that the claim which plaintiff pretends to have upon the cattle is based upon a pretended or attempted transfer of them from Fagniani to the plaintiff; that said transfer was done with a view to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of Fagniani; and that when the transfer was pretended and attempted to be made, plaintiff knew that it was solely for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of Fagniani, and was not made in good faith, and was wholly void.

[195]The cause was tried by the Court, a jury having been waived, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. From this judgment plaintiff appealed.

The decision of .the Court was as follows:

“ 1. That on the 18th day of June, 1880,'the defendant, P. L. Hallstead, was, and ever since has been, and still is, the duly elected, qualified, and acting Sheriff of the County of Plumas, in and for the State of California.

Stephens v. Hallstead

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief