Baranger & Co. v. Meyer, Cahn & Talbott

Bad Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 121·34 Cal. App. 158·166 P. 862
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 19, 1917Civ. No. 2227.California1,064 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful and malicious acts of the defendants in procuring the seizure of certain merchandise out of the stock of merchandise of the plaintiff, under a writ of attachment issued at the instance of the defendants in an action in the superior court of Los Angeles County wherein the defendant, The Frankoli Company, was plaintiff and one A. E. Baranger was defendant.

The plaintiff bases its claim of right to a new trial upon insufficiency of the evidence to support certain of the findings. The specifications as shown by the transcript aré that the evidence is insufficient to justify finding III and that portion of finding II which states “that said action was begun and prosecuted and said attachment levied without malice on the part of either or any of the defendants, and that said defendants, and each of them, had probable cause for the commencement and prosecution of said action and the levying of said attachment.” Finding III relates only to the measure of damages to which the plaintiff would be entitled if the facts established a cause of action herein,…

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.