Horr

Horr v. Barker

Good Law
6 Cal. 489
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1856California662 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

On the 8th February, one West had in store 3276 barrels of Gallego flour, and 572 barrels of Haxall flour.

Subsequently, West sells at two different periods to the plaintiffs, an aggregate of 1700 barrels of the Gallego, and 324 barrels of the Haxall, but .which at the time of the respective sales were not separated from the bulk of West’s flour.

Subsequent orders of West in favor of other purchasers, to whom the flour was delivered, reduced the amount in store of the original bulk, before the seizure by the defendants, to 1482 barrels of Gallego, and 324 barrels of Haxall.

• There was also in store at the time of the seizure, 200 barrels of Haxall flour, a different and subsequent lot sent there by West, and sold by him to Piper; but this can make no figure in the transaction, because it was separate and apart from the other flour by position in the warehouse, sufficiently to be distinctly known, and specifically delivered. It was not mingled with the other Haxall flour, but was placed upon the top of the large quantity of Gallego flour, from which it was distinguished by its brand, and in that position was seen and accepted by the buyer, pointed…

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.