Tuohy

The contract between the plaintiff and W. P. Leering did not divest the plaintiff of his title to the sheep and their increase. It was an employment by plaintiff of Leering to take care of his (plaintiff’s) property for reward. (Civil Code, sec. 1965.)

The contract was for the personal services of Leering, and if he permitted the sheep to be taken from him, or abandoned them daring the term, or delivered them to a stranger without the consent of plaintiff, the latter had the right to resume possession of his property in order to preserve it. (Bobinson v. Hass, 40 Cal. 474 ; Story on Bailments, sec. 394; 2 Blackst. Com. 396; Bradley v. Arnold, 16 Yt. 382.)

Leering had no title to the sheep subject to seizure under attachment against him, for two reasons: 1st. The contract was an entirety, and performance on the part of Leering was a condition precedent to his right to anything under the contract. (Civil Code, sec. 1436.)

*321 Beering was to take care of the sheep for two years from November 1st, 1873, and was to receive his pay at the end of the term. Before any party to a contract can require another party to perform any act under it, he must fulfill all conditions precedent…