Holly

Holly v. Heiskell

Good Law
112 Cal. 174·1896 Cal. LEXIS 662·44 P. 466
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 28, 1896Sac. No. 82California336 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendant, upon the judgment-roll, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action is claim and delivery.

Appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because there is no averment in the complaint that respondent was the owner, or entitled to the possession, of the property sued for at the time the action was brought; and, under the authorities, the contention must be sustained. In a suit to recover personal property the complaint must show the ultimate fact that plaintiff was the owner or entitled to possession at the time of the commencement of the action; and it is not sufficient to merely aver that he was the owner or entitled to possession at some period prior to that time. It was so expressly held in Fredericks v. Tracy, 98 Cal. 658 ; Affierbach v. McGovern, 79 Cal. 269 , and Masterson v. Clark (Cal.), 41 Pac. Rep. 796 , and the two first-namM cases were referred to approvingly in the still more recent case of Williams v. Ashe, 111 Cal. 180 . Counsel for respondent seek to show us a distinction between those cases and the case at bar, but we are not able to see it. In Affierbach v. McGovern, supra, there was no demurrer to the complaint. In…

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.