Abrahams

Abrahams v. Hammel

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 97·40 Cal. App. 11·180 P. 41
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 1919Civ. No. 2620.California756 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

Under a writ of attachment, issued in an action wherein F. W. Cole was plaintiff and G. G. Gillette was defendant, W. A. Hammel, as sheriff, levied upon and took possession of a certain automobile, title to which the plaintiff claimed was vested in Gillette. Thereupon plaintiff in this action filed a third-party claim with the sheriff and demanded delivery of possession of the property, which was refused.

This action for conversion followed, and judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict of a jury in favor of defendants.

The appeal is from the judgment and an order of court denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The sole contention of appellant, which he presents without incorporating in the record the instructions given the jury, is that the verdict is not justified by the evidence; hence it. is said the court should have granted his motion for a new trial.

[1] The evidence, in which there is some conflict, tended to show that on October 5, 1912, a conditional sale contract was made by the California Motor Company to Gillette, under which it, reserving the title to the car subject to the making of certain deferred payments thereon, when title was to vest in 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.