History
  • No items yet
midpage
Taylor v. Seymour
6 Cal. 512
Cal.
1856
Check Treatment
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

We think that, as in the ease of Daumiel v. Gorham, 6 Cal., (Jan. Term, 1856,) the officer was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s claim to the goods, and a demand for them.

The fact that the officer had already obtained indemnity, will not affect this right. The notice of another’s claim to the goods might materially affect the character of the indemnity which an officer might require.

The conversation between Taylor and the constable’s bailee of the goods, cannot be held as notice to the constable.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Taylor v. Seymour
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1856
Citation: 6 Cal. 512
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.