Palmer & Rey v. Marysville Democrat Publishing Co.

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 901·90 Cal. 168·27 P. 21
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 2, 1891No. 14069California242 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

— This is an-action to recover possession of a certain printing-press delivered by plaintiffs' assignors to one McWhorter, under a contract similar in terms to that which was under consideration in the case of Palmer v. Howard, 72 Cal. 293 ; 1 Am. St. Rep. 60 .

When the plaintiffs rested at the trial, the defendant moved the court for a nonsuit, upon several grounds. The motion was granted, and the only question for consideration is, whether the court erred in its ruling.

*169 McWhorter sold the property to Holland & Crane, and they had full notice of the terms-and conditions under which the former had secured possession of it.

The agreement of June 27,1887, was binding not only upon McWhorter, but upon subsequent purchasers with notice of the conditions under which McWhorter took and held the property.

Assuming that the plaintiffs were required to prove that the defendant took the property with notice of the facts, the grounds of the motion for a nonsuit do not specify a failure to prove such notice; and under the rule well established here, a nonsuit cannot be granted, unless the ground upon which it is supported was called to the attention of the court and the plaintiffs at…

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.