Ross v. Sedgwick

California Supreme Court Mar 31, 1886 No. No. 9052Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the transfer of furniture from a debtor to her brother in satisfaction of a debt was valid, as there was sufficient evidence of a change of possession under the Civil Code and the preference of one creditor over others is not fraudulent.

Issues

Whether the transfer of furniture was void for lack of immediate delivery and continued change of possession under section 3440 of the Civil Code.
Whether a transfer of property to satisfy a just debt is void as a fraudulent conveyance under section 3439 of the Civil Code if it hinders other creditors.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing specific jury instructions regarding the possession of leased premises and fraudulent intent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The plaintiff had assumed control, and his possession was open, visible, and notorious.”

“A creditor violates no rule of law when he takes payment or security for his demand, though others are thereby deprived of all means of obtaining satisfaction of their own equally meritorious claims.”

Synopsis

Sale — Delivery—Change of Possession—Evidence. — The action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of certain household furniture. The defendant, a sheriff, justified the taking under an execution against the vendor of the plaintiff. The property in question constituted the furniture of a lodging-house kept hy the vendor, and was sold to the plaintiff in payment of an antecedent indebtedness. At the time of the sale, the plaintiff, a lodger in the house, immediately took possession of the furniture, notified the inmates of the house that he had bought it, and continued to exercise control over it until it was seized hy the defendant. Erom the time of the sale until a few hours before the seizure, the vendor of the plaintiff resided in the house, hut during most of the time was ill in bed. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to show that the sale was accompanied hy an immediate delivery, and followed hy an actual and continued change of possession.

Id. —Possession of House. —Under such circumstances, the vendee might have taken actual possession of the furniture, although the legal possession of the house remained in the vendor.

Id.—Sale in Payment of Indebtedness — Hindering and Delaying Creditors. — A sale of personal property in payment of an antecedent indebtedness is not void under section 3439 of the Civil Code, although the vendee knew that the effect of the sale would he to hinder and delay other creditors of the vendor in the collection of their debts.

New Trial—Newly Discovered Evidence—Affidavits must Show Diligence.—A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, if no reason is shown in the moving affidavits why the evidence might not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at the trial.

Belcher, C. C. This was an action to recover damages for the conversion by the defendant of certain household furniture, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff.

[248]The defendant justified the taking of the furniture upon the ground that he was sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, and as such seized the property and sold it under an execution issued against one Annie P. Valleau, whose property he alleged it was at the time of such seizure.

The case was tried before a jury, and the verdict was in favor of plaintiff.

The appeal is by the defendant, from the judgment and an order denying a new trial.

The record shows that Mrs. Valleau was the keeper of a lodging-house in the city of San Francisco for which she had been paying a monthly rental of sixty-five dollars. The landlord notified her to leave the premises, and that her rent would be raised to one. hundred dollars per month. lie commenced an action to remove her from the premises, and on the 11th of September, 1882, obtained a judgment of restitution and for three hundred dollars, treble rent for one month, and for costs. About this time she notified the plaintiff, who was her brother, and lived in the country, that she was in trouble and wanted him to come down and help her. He came to the city on the 15th of September, took a room in the lodging-house, and remained there until the 25th of the month. On the 20th he took an inventory of all the furniture in the house, and then exacted, and Mrs. Valleau gave him, a bill of sale of it. She was indebted to him at the time in a sum equal to the value of the furniture, and the sale was made in payment of that indebtedness. He at once took possession of the property, notified the lodgers in the house that he had bought it, and continued to exercise control over it until it was seized hy the defendant. Mrs. Valleau engaged a room for herself in another house, but became ill, and was unable to leave the lodging-house until the early morning of the 25th, when she went away, taking some of her personal effects with her. On the afternoon of the 25th a deputy sheriff, [249]under the defendant, went to the lodging-house and levied an execution issued on the judgment above referred-to, upon all the furniture which he found therein. The plaintiff was there, and before the levy was made notified the deputy that the property was his. After due notice the furniture was sold by the defendant under the execution.

Ross v. Sedgwick

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief