Angell v. Hopkins (1889) · DecisionDepot

Angell v. Hopkins

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

California Supreme Court May 20, 1889 No. No. 11953Published

Before: Hayne

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an error in overruling a demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action is immaterial if it does not affect substantial rights, and that evidence of the cost of property is admissible as a circumstance to aid in determining its value at the time of conversion.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in overruling a demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action.
Whether evidence of the cost of property is admissible to determine the value of property at the time of conversion.
Whether an attaching creditor's belief regarding ownership estops the true owner from asserting title.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Error in overruling a demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action is immaterial, if it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”

“in arriving at such value, it was proper to take into consideration what the property cost as a circumstance, to aid at arriving at its value at the time in question.”

Synopsis

Demurrer fo® Misjoinder of Causes of Action — Immaterial Error. — Error in overruling a demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action is immaterial if no injury resulted therefrom. Instance.

Conversion — Measure of Damages—Value of Property—Evidence of its Cost. — In determining what was the value of the property at the time of the conversion, evidence is admissible of the cost of the property, —not as showing the value conclusively, but as a circumstance to aid in arriving at the value at the time in question.

Attachment—Seizure of Property not Belonging to the Debtor.— Estoppel. ■— That an attaching creditor had reason to believe that the property was the property of his debtor does not justify the sheriff in seizing such property, and is no defense to an action by the owner for a conversion.

Hayne, C. — Action for the conversion of personal property. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Several points are made.

1. It is said that the demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action should have been sustained. But assuming, for the purposes of the case, that this is so, no injury resulted to the appellant, for the reason that the findings show that the value of the property was the only basis for the judgment given. Error in overruling a demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action is immaterial, if it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (Reynolds v. Lincoln, 71 Gal. 185.)

2. It is contended that there was error in admitting [183]evidence as to what the property cost the plaintiff. It is quite true that the measure of damages is the value of the property at the time of the conversion, with certain additions in certain cases. (Civ. Code, sec. 3336.) But in arriving at such value, it was proper to take into consideration what the property cost as a circumstance, to aid at arriving at its value at the time in question. (Luse v. Jones, 39 N. J. L. 708; Jones v. Morgan, 90 N. Y. 10; 43 Am. Rep. 131; Norton v. Willis, 73 Me. 580; Small v. Pool, 8 Ired. 47; Baggan v. Horne, 97 N. C. 268; Raw-son v. Prior, 57 Vt. 615; Ford v. Smith, 27 Wis. 567; Roberts v. Dunn, 71 Ill. 50.)

3. The circumstances claimed to show that the attaching creditor had reason to believe that the property belonged to his debtor instead of the plaintiff, do not estop the plaintiff from showing that he was the owner.

The other matters do not require special notice. We therefore advise that the judgment and order appealed from be affirmed.

We concur.

Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

The Court. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Angell v. Hopkins

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief