Hulford

Hulford v. Neale

Good Law
107 Cal. 610·1895 Cal. LEXIS 797·40 P. 1044
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 29, 1895No. 15808California927 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Temple, J.

I concur in the judgment, but I do not understand the controversy exactly as it is stated by Mr. Justice McFarland. The court practically divided the storage money between the parties in proportion to the time the goods remained in storage before or after the assignment, without reference to the amount earned, computed by the warehouse custom. For instance, if the goods had been stored five months when the assignment was made, and, therefore, the full amount for storage had accrued, still, if after the assignment they had remained two months longer, and no further charge could be made for such additional time, the court gave to plaintiffs only five-sevenths of the amount, and to the defendant two-sevenths, after deducting cost of cartage, which is included in the charge for the first month. Defendant contends that he would be entitled, in the supposed case, to two'-sevenths of the whole amount, since all is charged as storage. I think in this view the court properly deducted the charge for cartage before computing defendant’s pro rata charge. I therefore concur in the judgment.

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This action was brought to recover certain moneys alleged to have been collected and received by defendant from divers persons for and on account of plaintiffs. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs in the sum of $2,038.95. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The plaintiffs were conducting a warehouse business, and in February, 1893, they agreed to sell the business, including the goodwill, leases for warehouses, office furniture, and certain other personal property used in the business, to the defendant. The transaction was completed and possession given to defendant on March 1, 1893. At that time there were large quantities of grain and general merchandise stored in the warehouses, upon which money was due to plaintiffs for storage. This grain and merchandise had been taken by plaintiffs under the system called “ season storage;” that is, a certain sum per ton was charged for the first month’s storage, and a smaller sum for succeeding months, until a certain amount agreed upon had accrued, after which there was no further charge until the end of the “ season,” which was the first day of the following June, and the owner of the…

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.