Haley

Haley v. Nunan

Good Law
2 Cal. Unrep. 189
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 23, 1883No. 8143California461 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKee, J.

Action to recover damages for the conversion of personal property. Upon motion of defendant’s attorney, a general demurrer to the complaint was overruled, with leave to answer. Yet it is now contended that the court erred in overruling the demurrer. But where a demurrer has been overruled at the request of the demurring party, he will not be heard, on an appeal from the judgment entered in the case, to question the correctness of the ruling: Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 568 ; Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 154 .

The answer filed by the defendant contained specific denials of all the allegations of the complaint. Upon the issues raised the court found that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the property at the time of its seizure by the defendant; and that the defendant wrongfully seized the property and converted it to his own use. But there was an amended answer, which contained, besides specific denials of the" allegations of the complaint, affirmative averments that the defendant, as sheriff of the city and county, of San Francisco, seized the property and sold it, as the property of one A. Husted, to satisfy an execution in favor of-Bartlett v. Husted *190 “and that 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.