22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4db,*29 This was an action to recover a quantity of sugar, which had been seized on execution, as the property of one Prank. The defendant contended, on the trial, that the property belonged to Frank, the defendant in execution, and not the present plaintiff. The Court, sitting as a jury, found that the sugar was the property of the plaintiff, and that he had never sold the same .to Frank. This is conclusive upon the point, and will not be reviewed by us, as the evidence was conflicting. The appellants contend that the Court erred in refusing to decide, as a matter of law, “that if the plaintiff gave out to the public that he had sold the sugar to Frank, and gave to him the possession, then, as to Frank’s creditors, it was his property, and subject to be levied upon and seized for his debts.” This instruction was properly refused, because there was no evidence to warrant it. To estop the plaintiff, it should appear that his declarations were communicated to the creditor, who seized the goods, and that he parted with some right or advantange, on the faith of the information. Hot only is this fact not shown, but the defendant has failed to show that the plaintiff ever made any statement on the subject. Judgment affirmed.24:T4f1,

*29 This was an action to recover a quantity of sugar, which had been seized on execution, as the property of one Prank. The defendant contended, on the trial, that the property belonged to Frank, the defendant in execution, and not the present plaintiff. The Court, sitting as a jury, found that the sugar was the property of the plaintiff, and that he had never sold the same .to Frank. This is conclusive upon the point, and will not be reviewed by us, as the evidence was conflicting.

The appellants contend that the Court erred in refusing to decide, as a matter of law, “that if the plaintiff gave out to the public that he had sold the sugar to Frank, and gave to him the possession, then, as to Frank’s creditors, it was his property, and subject to be levied upon and seized for his debts.”

This instruction was properly refused, because there was no evidence to warrant it. To estop the plaintiff, it should appear that his declarations were communicated to the creditor, who seized the goods, and that he parted with some right or advantange, on the faith of the information. Hot only is this fact not shown, but the defendant has failed to show that the plaintiff ever made any statement on the subject.

Judgment affirmed.

25:T4f7,

Appear from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.

Samuel P. Goodale brought this action to recover of the defendant, as sheriff, one hundred and fourteen barrels of sugar, or their value. The defendant justified the taking, under execution process, against one George Frank. On the trial, it appeared that in September, 1856, the plaintiff Goodale being the owner of a lot of China sugar, in mats, made a certain contract with Frank, under which the sugar was delivered to him. The evidence as to whether the contract amounted to a sale or not, was conflicting. The substance of the testimony is, that Good-ale delivered the sugar to Frank under a contract that Frank was to repack it in barrels, mix it with molasses, so as to change its character, and account to the plaintiff for the original article at nine and one-half cents per pound, and all over that sum to be divided between Frank and Goodale. Goodale gave out that he had sold the sugar and did not wish it known that he was interested in it. The Court below, sitting as a jury, found that plaintiff had never sold the sugar, and thereupon rendered judgment against defendant for the return thereof, or for its value. Defendant moved for a new trial, which, being denied, he appealed.