Raddatz

Raddatz v. Hedgpeth

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1578·223 Cal. App. 2d 633·35 Cal. Rptr. 855
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 1963Civ. 21047California1,895 words

Opinion

Opinion

Salsman, J.

Appellant Raddatz attached personal property alleged to belong to the debtor Sancal Lumber Company, a corporation, hereafter referred to as Sancal. Hedgpeth and Daniel filed a third party claim, alleging ownership of the attached property. After hearing, the trial court entered its judgment in favor of third party claimants. No findings were made by the trial court, and none were required in this proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 689.) Appellant attacks the judgment, however, on the ground that the evidence does not support it. We have examined the record and have concluded that appellant is correct in this contention and we therefore reverse the judgment.

The record shows that in 1958 Hedgpeth and Daniel owned land upon which they conducted a sawmill operation. On June 30, 1958, by conditional sales contract, they sold the land, mill and equipment to certain individuals who later, by consent of Hedgpeth and Daniel, transferred the property to Sancal. The items of property which comprised the mill were generally described in the conditional sales contract, and have been referred to in the record and briefs as the "conditional sales items.” After Sancal took possession of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.