Krumdick

Krumdick v. White

Good Law
107 Cal. 37·1895 Cal. LEXIS 708·39 P. 1066
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 4, 1895No. 15873California941 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Upon the first trial of this case the defendant had judgment, and the plaintiff appealed, and the judgment was reversed by this court. (See Krumdick v. White, 92 Cal. 143 .) After the reversal a new trial was had, which resulted in findings and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals therefrom, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The action is in claim and delivery to recover possession of certain personal property, with damages for its detention.

William Krumdick died February 13,1887. On January 4, 1887, during his last illness, he executed a certain instrument in writing to F. J. Edmunds concerning the property here in question, under which Edmunds *40 sold the property, consisting of horses and wagons, to the defendant in April, 1887, after the death of Krumdick; and this instrument, it is contended by appellant, empowered Edmunds to confer a good title to the property by the sale.

Upon the former appeal a construction was given to that instrument. It was there said: “The instrument was one which constituted Edmunds the agent of Krumdick, while disabled, to carry on his business as a hauler of freights, and to do all acts in that behalf which…

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.