Bunting

Bunting v. Saltz

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 781·84 Cal. 168·24 P. 167
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 24, 1890No. 12241California1,274 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

This is a case in which the plaintiff’s right to recover depends not only upon a transfer to her *170 of the property which, she alleges, was wrongfully and unlawfully taken from her possession and converted by the defendants to their own use, but likewise upon her actual possession of it at the time of such alleged taking and conversion. If the transfer was not accompanied by an immediate delivery, and followed by an actual and continued change of possession, it is conclusively presumed to be fraudulent, and therefore void as against the creditors of the vendor. (Civ. Code, sec. 3440.) ■ “Actual” means existing in act, and truly and absolutely so; really acted or acting; carried out; opposed to potential, possible, virtual, or theoretical.

If there is no evidence of an actual change of possession of the property claimed to have been transferred by the plaintiff’s vendor to her, then the verdict of the jury was not justified by the evidence, and the defendant’s motion for a new trial should have been .granted on that ground, and the order denying said motion must be reversed.

The plaintiff resides in the state of New York, and is not shown to have been ever in this state.…

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.