Humphreys v. Hopkins

California Supreme Court Feb 27, 1889 No. No. 12,626Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court failed to make necessary findings of fact regarding whether the property was actually delivered to the receivers, which was a material issue in the case. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings of fact were sufficient to address the material issues raised by the pleadings regarding the delivery of property to the receivers.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to make a specific finding on whether the attaching creditors were citizens of the state.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The findings of the court do not respond to the issues.”

“It became a material issue whether the property had come into the hands of plaintiffs under the assignment from the railroad company, as alleged.”

Synopsis

Replevin by Receiver—Pleadings—Findings—Judgment.—In replevin, plaintiffs alleged that they had been duly appointed and qualified as receivers of a railroad company in another state, which thereupon delivered all its property to plaintiffs, and that the property in question had been wrongfully taken from them by defendant in this state. The answer admitted the appointment and qualification o£ plaintiffs as receivers, but denied that the company had delivered to them its property, and specifically denied the delivery of the property in question, which defendant claimed to hold as sheriff under an attachment issued against the company. Held, that the issues demanded a finding that the property had been delivered to plaintiffs as receivers before it came into this state, and that a finding that plaintiffs were entitled to its possession when taken from them by defendant was insufficient, it being but a conclusion of law.

PER CURIAM. The findings of the court do not respond to the issues. The complaint alleges, in substance, that on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1884, plaintiffs were by an order of the United States circuit court of Missouri, appointed receivers of all the property of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company, with authority to take possession of, control, and operate its railroad, and preserve the property; that plaintiffs duly qualified as such receivers, and thereafter the said railroad company transferred and delivered all of its property to the plaintiffs, in pursuance of said order; that plaintiffs took possession of, and ever afterward managed and controlled, the same, until interfered with by the defendant, as hereinafter stated; that the car in controversy is a part of the property so transferred; that, while plaintiffs were in possession of the car, the defendant at the city of San Francisco, April 3, 1885, wrongfully and unlawfully took it from their possession, and still unlawfully detains the same, although a demand for the possession of the car has been made by the plaintiffs.

The answer admits that the plaintiffs were appointed, and that they duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties as receivers, as alleged, but denies that the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company delivered any property to plaintiffs as receivers, and denies specifically that the car described in the complaint was ever transferred or delivered to plaintiffs by said company. For a further and separate answer defendant (sheriff of San Francisco) averred [58]that he, as sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, in obedience to a writ of attachment issued out of the superior court, had taken and held the property on the first day of April, 1885, at the instance of the plaintiffs in an action by Payot, Upham & Co. vs. said Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company, wherein said firm claimed the sum of $641.71 upon an express contract.

The court found that the car in controversy was on the sixteenth day of March, 1885, at the city of St. Louis, lawfully in possession of plaintiffs; that on said last-named day said car was loaded with freight by plaintiffs and sent to the city of San Francisco, where it arrived about April 1st, in the custody of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, Avhich company was the agent of plaintiffs for the purpose of delivering freight and returning the car to plaintiffs at St. Louis; that the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully seized and took said car from the custody of said railroad company on April 3, 1885, and continued to detain the same until September 5th following, when it was taken under due process from the defendant, and delivered to the plaintiffs in this action; that on March 24, 1885, Henry Payot and Isaac Upham were partners doing business in the city and county of San Francisco, and commenced an action against the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company, as alleged by defendant, and that defendant, as sheriff, took and held possession of the car, as alleged by him.

Humphreys v. Hopkins

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief