Claudius v. Aguirre

California Supreme Court Jun 22, 1891 No. No. 14322Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court's finding on whether a transfer of property was fraudulent due to a lack of immediate delivery is conclusive when based on conflicting evidence, and that a judgment for the possession of personal property is not erroneous for failing to provide an alternative judgment for the property's value when the plaintiff has already obtained possession of the property prior to judgment.

Issues

Whether a transfer of personal property was fraudulent under Section 3440 of the Civil Code due to a lack of immediate delivery.
Whether a judgment for the possession of personal property is erroneous for failing to provide an alternative judgment for the value of the property when the plaintiff has already obtained possession.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“What constitutes an “immediate delivery” or an “ actual and continued change of possession ” is, however, a fact to be determined by the court upon the evidence presented in each particular case.”

“if the plaintiff has already obtained this possession before judgment, there is no occasion for any judgment for its value, as the condition is wanting upon which such clause in the judgment is authorized; viz., “ if a delivery cannot be had.””

Synopsis

Statute of Frauds — Sale of Personal Property — Delivery and Change of Possession — Question of Fact — Conflicting Evidence — Appeal. — What constitutes an “immediate delivery” or an “actual and continued change of possession ” of personal property within the meaning of section 3440 of the Civil Code, providing that transfers of personal property are “conclusively presumed tobe fraudulent where they are not accompanied by an immediate delivery and followed by an actual and continued change of possession of the things transferred,” is a question of fact to be determined by the court, and where the evidence upon the point is conflicting, the finding of the trial court that there was a delivery and change of possession is conclusive, even though there may be evidence tending strongly to show an attempt to evade the statute.

Claim and Delivery — Judgment for Delivery Alone.—In an action to recover the possession of personal property, where the delivery of the property is made to the plaintiff before the judgment, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for its possession is sufficient, without an alternative judgment for its value.

Harrison, J. — The plaintiff brought this action against the sheriff of the county of Los Angeles, to recover the possession of certain personal property which had been levied on by him under a writ of attachment issued in an action against the plaintiff’s vendor, and at the time of issuing the summons made' the statutory claim therefor, under which the property was taken from the defendant and delivered to him. Upon the trial of the cause the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for' the possession of the property, together with damages for its detention, but made no finding as to its value. From this judgment, and an order denying a new trial, the defendant has appealed, upon the grounds that the transfer of the personal property to the plaintiff from his vendor was fraudulent, inasmuch as it was not accompanied by an immediate change of possession; and that the judgment as entered is erroneous, for the reason that it does not provide for a recovery of the value of the property in case a delivery cannot be had.

[5031]. Section 3440 of the Civil Code declares that “ every transfer of personal property .... is conclusively presumed, if made by a person having at the time the possession or control of the property, and not accompanied by an immediate delivery, and followed by an actual and continued change of possession of the things transferred, to be fraudulent, and therefore void, against those who are his creditors, while he remains in possession.”

What constitutes an “immediate delivery” or an “ actual and continued change of possession ” is, however, a fact to be determined by the court upon the evidence presented in each particular case. (Godchaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 322; 85 Am. Dec. 178.) The circumstances connected with a transfer of personal property are so varied that it would be impossible to frame a rule applicable to each case, or to determine in advance what acts would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. When the transfer is challenged as fraudulent under this section, all the circumstances connected therewith are essential to a determination of its character, and it can very rarely be the case that there will not be such a conflict of testimony as to preclude this court from re-examining its sufficiency.

In the present case the court found upon such conflicting evidence “ that on the fifteenth day of March, 1890, one A. P. Stone, the then owner of the property described in the complaint herein, sold, transferred, and delivered the said property to the plaintiff herein for a valuable consideration,” and also, “ that plaintiff was the owner, in the possession of, and entitled to the possession of the said property continuously from March 15, 1890, until the same was taken by the defendant under said writ of attachment on March 18, 1890, without the consent of plaintiff.” The evidence upon the subject of these findings is set out in the bill of exceptions, and although it presents strong characteristics of

Claudius v. Aguirre

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief