Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.

The plaintiff sold to J. H. Routt a quantity of lumber for which he failed to pay the plaintiff. Routt sold the lumber to the defendant. Contending that it had .been wronged, the plaintiff sued the defendant under a charge of conversion. At the end of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved for a nonsuit. The motion was granted and the plaintiff has appealed.

The case was appealed twice before this appeal. (Wendling etc. Co. v. Glenwood, etc. Co., 153 Cal. 411 [ 95 Pac. 1029 ]; Id., 19 Cal. App. 1 [ 124 Pac. 734 ].) The first of those cases states that the rule of procedure declared in Moore v. Copp, 119 Cal. 429 [ 51 Pac. 630 ], governs this •case. Following the rule declared in that case, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to produce evidence to prove the issues tendered by its complaint, including the issue of ownership and wrongful conversion. The burden then shifted to the defendant to prove that the plaintiff sold to Routt before the action was commenced. Both of these things were done, in the trial of this case, during the presentation of the plaintiff’s case. The steps next in order are stated in Hart v. Church, 126 Cal. 471 , at page 481 [ 77 Am. St. Rep. 195 , 58 Pac.…