Gould v. Huntley
Before: Belcher, Foote, Hayne
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion,
Belcher, C. C. This is an action to recover the possession or value of one bay mare and one header, which [400]were levied upon and sold by the defendant as sheriff of the county of Placer, under an execution duly issued upon a judgment against Joseph G. Gould and C. A. Hines, and it is stipulated that the only question involved is as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s possession of the mare and header, to enable him to hold them as against the creditors of his vendors.
It appears from the record that Joseph G. Gould was the father of plaintiff, and owned a ranch in Placer County known as the Gould place. Concerning the ranch and mare the plaintiff testified as follows: “ The Gould place spoken of was my father’s ranch up to September, 1884. At that time my father conveyed this ranch to me, and I immediately went into possession of the entire ranch, buildings, and everything, and from that time to the present I have been in possession of the same, and have conducted the business of farming there. Immediately after my father conveyed the ranch to me he went East, and remained until March, 1885. When he came back he came to the ranch, and since then he has lived in the same house with me, because he reserved this right in the conveyance to me. He is seventy-nine years old. I bought the mare the same time the ranch was conveyed to me, and I have ever since had exclusive possession of the ranch and mare, except that my father lived in the house with me, and drove the mare several times to Sacramento..... I bought the mare from my father in September, 1884. I had used her in my father’s employ for over six months before the purchase, and had principally cared for her during that time. I kept her both before and after the sale on the Gould place.....My father has not exercised any authority or control over the mare since I bought her, or over anything on the ranch since he conveyed it to me, except as above stated.”
Concerning the header, the plaintiff testified: —
“ C. A. Hines and I bought the header in the spring [401]of 1884, and also the beds, and brought them, into the field and ran them in partnership for a few days; then he turned his interest in them over to me on condition that I would pay our vendors for them, which I after-wards did. Hines did not afterwards use the header. .... After Hines let me have his interest in the header and beds, I ran the machine myself during the balance of the season, cutting grain whenever I could get a job; Hines had nothing more to do with it, and after the ranch was conveyed to me by my father, I took the header and beds home and put them under shelter, where they remained until they were attached.
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)