Runge

Runge v. Wilson

Good Law
1908 Cal. App. LEXIS 324·7 Cal. App. 577·95 P. 178
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 1908Civ. No. 426.California908 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

This action is for the recovery of possession, or value if delivery cannot be had, of certain personal property. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and defendants had judgment, from which and from the order denying her motion for a new trial plaintiff appeals.

It appears that on October 31, 1905, one E. J. Wilson was the owner and in possession of certain personal property, described in the complaint, and on that day executed a bill of sale thereof to plaintiff, but Wilson remained in possession and plaintiff never had possession. On August 22, 1906, Wilson died testate while in possession of said property; by his will his wife, one of the defendants, was named as executrix, and she was duly appointed as such executrix on September 17, 1906; by the terms of 'the will she was given authority to sell the property of the estate without any order of the court; on September 22, 1906, the executrix sold the property in dispute to defendant Heeter for a valuable consideration, who had at the time no knowledge of any claim of plaintiff upon the property, nor does it appear that his codefendant, the executrix of Wilson’s will, knew of the sale to plaintiff; the sale to…

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.