79 Cal. 268 | Cal. | 1889
Lead Opinion
The respondent brought this suit against the appellant to recover certain personal property, consisting of live-stock and a wagon. The complaint avers that the plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of the property on the twelfth day of August, 1880, and the complaint was not filed until the fifteenth, day of December, 1884. There was no demurrer to the complaint, but the point is made in this court that it "does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. A complaint to be good must show a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant existing at the time the action is commenced. This
There is nothing in the-complaint to show that at the time the action was commenced the plaintiff had any ownership or right to possession of the property, or that the defendant had possession of it wrongfully.
It is further claimed that the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff is not sustained by the evidence. The facts, as disclosed by the evidence, and upon which the plaintiff relies, are, in substance, as follows: —
The plaintiff was the administrator of the estate of Cord Pope, deceased, on the eleventh day of August, 1880, and at that time the defendant was indebted to the estate upon a judgment, and executed to the plaintiff, as administrator of said estate, a bill of sale for a large amount of personal property, including the property in controversy here. On the following day the plaintiff, in his individual capacity, executed to the defendant a lease of this same property for the term of one year.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that the bill of sale was an absolute conveyance of the property in satisfaction of the judgment due the estate, and so it appears to be upon its face, while the defendant claims that the bill of sale was executed as a mere security for the payment of the debt, and that the lease back was made upon an express verbal agreement between the parties that the defendant should hold the property under the. lease and pay the rent, which was to be applied in satisfaction of the judgment, and upon the judgment being so satisfied, the property was again to be his.
Subsequently to the execution of these instruments, it was found that the defendant owned but a one-half interest in the property, the other one half being owned by one Jean Sere, as a partner of the defendant. In a litigation between Sere and the defendant, involving the
“ Q. Were you authorized to do that by your client, McGovern? A. Was I authorized to do what? Q. To take the bill of sale of Sere’s half-interest in this property to Affierbach, instead of making it to McGovern. Did McGovern authorize you to do that? A. In effect, he did. The sheriff had succeeded in getting a part of this property, and the other part was concealed from the sheriff, and upon my demand, McGovern delivered the other part to me as agent of Affierbach, and the next day or two brought me this $225, and paid me for Sere’s interest.”
This testimony wholly fails to show any authority given by the appellant for the taking of this bill of sale to the plaintiff instead of himself.
These three written instruments, the bill of sale to the plaintiff as administrator of Cord Pope, the lease from him individually to the appellant, and the bill of sale from Sere to the respondent, are the only evidences of title in the respondent, and we think they wholly fail to
We think, for the reasons stated, the verdict of the jury was not sustained by the evidence. Other questions are made upon the instructions, but the view we take of the merits renders it unnecessary to consider them.
■The point is made by the respondent that we cannot consider questions made upon the statement, for the reason that the notice of intention to move for a new trial is not set out therein, but we have held in a late case that it is not necessary to bring the notice of intention to move for a new trial to this court. (Pico v. Cohn, 78 Cal. 384.)
The judgment and'order denying a new trial are reversed, and the cause remanded.
Paterson, J., and Beatty, C, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing having been filed, the following opinion thereon, was rendered on the 19th of June, 1889: —
Rehearing
The petition for rehearing is denied, but upon a more careful examination of the bill of sale from the defendant to the plaintiff, for the property in controversy, we are of the opinion that it should be construed as being a bill of sale to him individually, and not as
Beatty, C. J., Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.