Karst

Karst v. Finn

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 207·39 Cal. App. 369·178 P. 973
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 1919Civ. No. 2493.California941 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an action in conversion. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she was the owner and entitled to the possession of a certain automobile, which she alleges was wrongfully taken away, converted, and sold by defendant, Thomas F. Finn, sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, to satisfy a judgment which the sheriff’s codefendant, Cuyler Lee, had obtained against one E. J. White.

The trial was had before a jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $750 damages against both defendants.

Thereafter defendants moved for a new trial, which was granted, and the plaintiff appeals from that order.

One of the grounds upon which the motion for a new trial was made is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and the evidence is before us. The order of the court granting a new trial is in general terms, without specifying the grounds of this action; and, in support of the order, we will assume that it was made upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. (Weisser v. Southern Pacific Co., 148 Cal. 426 , [7 Ann. Cas. 636, 83 Pac. 439 ] ; Morgan v. J. W. Robinson Co., 157 Cal. 348 , [ 107 Pac. 695 ]; Gordon v. Roberts, 162 Cal. 506 , [ 123…

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.