Pool v. Clifford (1889) · DecisionDepot

Pool v. Clifford

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Mar 12, 1889 No. No. 12860Published

Before: Hayne, Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence failed to establish the plaintiff's ownership of the disputed property, as the transactions constituted a loan to her husband rather than a transfer of ownership, and the purported security interest was invalid due to a lack of possession.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's ownership of the property in dispute.
Whether the defendant's motion for nonsuit should have been granted.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding a deed of assignment from evidence.
Whether the plaintiff's refusal to appear for a deposition warranted striking the complaint or dismissing the action.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think it must be held that the wife loaned the money to the husband, and that the-horses were his property.”

“The “security” which she seems to have supposed she had amounts to nothing, because she never had possession of the property.”

“The defendant’s motion for nonsuit should have been granted, except as to Tommy and Dandy.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The action was brought to recover the value of certain personal property. The defendant claimed title to the property under a deed made by D. M. Pool, the husband of the plaintiff, to H. K. Clifford, which described the property intended to be conveyed thereby as “ all lands and tenements, goods, chattels, and property of all descriptions, both real and personal, and mixed, and choses in action, wherever the same may be, except such property as is by law exempt from execution and forced sale.” On the trial, the defendant offered this deed in evidence, but it was excluded by the court. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Opinion — Hayne

Hayne, C. Action to recover the value of certain horses and other personal property. Verdict for plaintiff for eight hundred dollars. Defendant appeals. It is contended that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was the owner of the property.

[372]As to two of the horses, Tommy and Dandy, which however do not seem to have been of much value, there can be no doubt that they belonged to the plaintiff. They were raised upon her ranch, and she allowed her husband to use them in the business. But we cannot say that there was any evidence that the other horses were the property of the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff had several thousand dollars in money, which she lent to her husband. She says: “The money was in the stable in the safe. My husband used it as he pleased. I gave him the money, and he used it as he deemed it advisable in the business. He did n’t tell me all his business, but he often told me whenever he got the money he would do as he deemed best; the money was there, and he would use it as he deemed profitable for the business. Susie was bought with my money, and he said I should have her as security.....I loaned my husband tivo hundred dollars to buy her.” Other horses, carts, etc., were bought much in the same way, and were brought to the stable and used by the husband in his business. Plaintiff says: “ Whenever he used my money to buy property, horses, he gave them to me as security. None, of this property was purchased without it being reported to me and I acquiesced in it.”

This is the substance of the testimony in relation to the question of ownership. We think it must be held that the wife loaned the money to the husband, and that the-horses were his property. The “security” which she seems to have supposed she had amounts to nothing, because she never had possession of the property.

The defendant’s motion for nonsuit should have been granted, except as to Tommy and Dandy. The deed offered by defendant should have been received in evidence, the description being, in our opinion, sufficient to cover all the personal property which the husband had.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order [373]

Pool v. Clifford

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Hayne

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — Thornton

AI Brief