Hall

Hall v. Susskind

Good Law
120 Cal. 559·1898 Cal. LEXIS 809·53 P. 46
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 9, 1898L. A. No. 286California2,237 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Britt, J.

This case in a different phase was before the court on a former appeal. (Hall v. Susskind, 109 Cal. 203 .) *561 Plaintiff sues as assignee in insolvency of one L. M. Wagner, who, prior to her insolvency, was engaged in business as dealer in jewelry, diamonds, watches, silverware, etc., at the city of Los Angeles. In his complaint plaintiff charged that defendant conspired with said insolvent and her husband (one J. B. Wagner who was her managing agent)-' to secrete and conceal a portion of her estate, described as “consisting of diamonds, watches, and jewelry,” to prevent the same from coming into the possession of the assignee; that the insolvent did conceal property not exempt by law;.that the defendant took possession of said concealed property knowing it to be part of the insolvent’s estate, converted the same to his own use, and sold ai portion thereof of the value of thirty thousand dollars. The court found among other things that after said J. B. Wagner, acting on behalf of said insolvent, had concealed and secreted part of her estate—described as in the complaint—the defendant, with knowledge of such concealment, and that the property concealed was part of the insolvent’s…

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.