Abrahams
Abrahams v. Hammel
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…