Alexander v. Denaveaux

Sharpstein, J.: The plaintiff alleges in substance that he, at a certain time, was Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and that while he was such Sheriff the defendants delivered to him an attachment, which they had sued out against the proprietors of a restaurant, which he attached and took into his possession, and that thereafter the defendants “ duly gave plaintiff, as Sheriff as aforesaid, instructions in writing to keep the said restaurant open while holding the same under said writ, and pursuant to said request and instructions plaintiff did keep the same open, and at the request of said Denaveaux and Maison (the defendants) plaintiff did, between the twenty-fifth day of July and the sixteenth day of October, 1877, render service and incur expense for the defendants herein and about the levy of said writ as aforesaid, the preservation of land, property, keepers’ fees, and cost of storage, to the amount and of the value of one thousand two hundred and seventy-two dollars and seventy-three cents.”

On the trial it was not shown that the defendants eyer gave the plaintiff any instructions in writing or otherwise, to keep said restaurant open for any period. But it was shown against the objection of defendants, that defendants’ attorneys did so instruct the plaintiff in writing, which was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff “for the purpose only of showing that Denaveaux and Maison (the defendants) had notice that the property had been attached, and that the Sheriff had it in his custody at the place where it had been attached, and not for the purpose of showing anything in regard to running of restaurant, and attorneys for plaintiff expressly disclaimed any intention to demand any amount or charge for running the restaurant.” To the ruling of the Court upon their objection to the introduction of this testimony, the defendants excepted.

There are cases in which testimony may be introduced for one purpose which is inadmissible for any other, and the Court in such cases may properly admit it for that purpose, and limit it at the request of the opposing party to that purpose only. But this testimony had a tendency to prove one of the [478]allegations of the complaint which was denied by the answer, to wit, that the defendants instructed the plaintiff in writing to keep the restaurant open, and it was wholly irrelevant and immaterial for any other purpose. The code does not require that the Sheriff shall give an attaching creditor notice of the levy of his attachment, and it was wholly unnecessary in this action to prove that the defendants had notice that theirs had been levied upon said restaurant. If the levy was properly made, the plaintiff was entitled to his legal fees, and the defendants were bound to pay them.