Pico v. Martinez, 55 Cal. 148

Pico v. Martinez

55 Cal. 148 | Cal. | 1880

Lead Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action of claim and delivery, and the transcript contains nothing beyond a judgment roll. It appears by the findings that the plaintiff let to the defendant certain flocks of sheep and goats for the term of three years, from the 6th day of April, 1878, upon certain terms and con-, ditions, with which defendant fully complied. On the 6th day of May, 1878, the plaintiff commenced this action for the recovery of said sheep and goats, or for their value. The Court *151found that said sheep and goats were of the value of $1.50 per head, and that the defendant was entitled to judgment for the possession of them, or in case a delivery could not be had, for the value of them, and rendered judgment accordingly. The only question that arises upon these findings is, whether the defendant, who had only a special or limited interest in the property, could recover of the plaintiff, who was the general owner, more than the value of such special or limited interest. The pleadings and findings show that the defendant had only a limited or special property in the sheep and goats replevied, and that the general property in them was in the plaintiff.

In New York and Wisconsin, whose codes arc substantially the same as ours, as to the character of the judgment to be rendered in a case like this, it has been held that the true value to be assessed and recovered by the defendant is the value of his special or limited property in the goods replevied. (Searner v. Luce, 23 Barbour, 240 ; Booth v. Ableman, 20 Wis. 21.) There is no finding as to the value of the defendant’s special or limited property in the sheep and goats; and in the absence of any statement on motion for a new trial, or bill of exceptions, we are not advised whether there was any evidence of its value before the Court. We are satisfied, however, that the value recovered should have been the value of defendant’s special or limited property only in the sheep and goats. We discover no other error in the record.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Myeick, J., concurred.

Concurrence Opinion

Thornton, J., concurring in the judgment of reversal:

I concur in the judgment in this case, but not on the grounds stated in the opinion of Justice Shaepstein. I am of opinion that if the defendant was entitled to the return of the property, the judgment, as entered, was proper. Under such circumstances he had a right to the return of the property, (for he was then entitled to the possession of it when the action was commenced) and the value was a substitute for the property. Pico could have evaded the payment of the money by returning the property. If Martinez had collected- the money under the *152judgment, he would have held it as he would have held the property if returned to him, liable to account when the three years period, mentioned in the contract, expired.

The judgment should be reversed because the findings are not sustained by the evidence. The evidence shows satisfactorily that the defendant failed to comply with his contract. This contract was a continuing one from the time the defendant first received the sheep, in August and October, 1877. The contract previously made was only reduced to writing on April 6th, 1878, with some modification which does not affect this decision. The defendant, in effect, acknowledges the receipt of 1,989 sheep by the contract as reduced to writing on the 6th of April. The contract distinctly refers to 1,989 sheep, and makes no reference to 1,250, as found by the Court. (See 25th finding.)

It is stipulated, that under no pretext, shall the defendant dispose of any head of sheep, without the consent of plaintiff. It is established by uncontroverted evidence that the defendant did sell some of the sheep without the consent of the plaintiff, of which he never gave any account to him. Upon the evidence, in my opinion, judgment should have passed for plaintiff.

The article of the contract styled “ additional article ” al- ■ lows plaintiff to sell his part of the sheep, or interest, as an entirety, but not any particular sheep or any number of head of sheep. That this is the meaning is evident from the further provision of such article, that ■ defendant may be allowed to take the part or interest, as an entirety, which belongs to him. He is not allowed to take less than his entire part and dispose of them. This additional article thus does not conflict with the views taken in the first portion of this opinion.

For the reasons above given, in my opinion, the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.