Doty v. O'Neil

California Supreme Court Jul 11, 1892 No. No. 14851Published

Before: Vanclief

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of an immediate delivery and actual, continued change of possession, and that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, correctly stated the law.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove an immediate delivery and actual, continued change of possession of the property sold.
Whether the jury instructions regarding the requirements for a valid transfer of personal property were erroneous or misleading.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Taken together, these instructions seem to preclude any inference by the jury that merely constructive possession would be sufficient.”

“The instructions given at request of plaintiff are not inconsistent with those given at request of defendant.”

Synopsis

Claim and Delivery—-Statute of Frauds — Chanqe of Possession — Constructive Possession—Instructions — Review upon Appeal.— In an action to recover the possession of personal property, involving a question as to actual and continued change of possession, under the statute of frauds, where it is claimed by the defendant upon appeal that the instructions for plaintiff tended to mislead the jury to infer that merely * constructive possession of the property was sufficient to uphold a transfer of the property to the plaintiff, as against an attaching creditor, the jury could not be misled, where the instructions, taken together as a whole, preclude such inference, and where it appears that even if the instructions objected to were not sufficiently definite as to the nature of the possession required, those given at the request of the defendant supplied the defect, and were not inconsistent therewith.

Vanclief, C. Action to recover the possession of personal property, or the value thereof. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The property consists of live-stock,—principally dairy cows,—which plaintiff claims to have purchased from his father, B. F. Doty. The defendant, as sheriff of San Luis Obispo County, took the property by virtue of an execution against B. F. Doty, and his defense to the action is, that the property in question was the property of B. F. Doty, and subject to the execution by virtue of which he took it.

1. Counsel for appellant claim that the evidence was ■ insufficient to prove that the sale of the property from B. F. Doty to the plaintiff was accompanied by an immediate delivery, or followed by an actual and continued [246]change of possession; and that it was therefore void as against the creditors of B. F. Doty.

The only evidence as to immediate delivery and change of possession is the testimony of plaintiff and B. F. Doty; and their testimony not only tends to prove, but if true is sufficient to prove, an immediate delivery, followed by an actual and continued change of possession. Nor is there anything in the nature of their testimony, or in the circumstances disclosed, tending to discredit these witnesses.

2. The second and fourth instructions given to the jury at the request of plaintiff are as follows: “ 2. Every transfer of personal property, if made by the person having possession or control of the property, must be accompanied by an immediate delivery, and followed by an actual and continued change of possession of the thing transferred, or the transfer is conclusively presumed to be fraudulent and void, against those who are his creditors while he remains in possession. But a change in location of the property intended to be transferred is not in -all cases essential to constitute a valid transfer. In all cases due regard must be had to the character of the .property, the nature of the transaction, the position of the parties, .and the intended use of the property. And if you find -from the evidence that there was an immediate delivery of the actual possession and control of all the property described in the bill of sale from B. F. Doty to plaintiff, at'the date thereof, and that such delivery was followed by an actual and continued change of possession and control in plaintiff from that time to the taking by defendant, you will be justified in finding that there was a proper delivery under said bill of sale.” “ 4. In determining what it takes to constitute a delivery and change of possession of personal property upon a sale of it, the jury should take into consideration the character of the property, and the situation of the parties at the time of the sale; and in this case, if the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff purchased the property in good faith, and for a

Doty v. O'Neil

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief