Agnew

Agnew v. Kimball

Good Law
1885 Cal. LEXIS 867·2 Cal. Unrep. 598·9 P. 91
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1885No. 7772California135 words

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The defendant claimed that the logs, for the conversion of which he was sued, were orignially the property of Clark & Rutherford, and were by them sold to one A. H. Rutherford, and by the latter sold to the defendant. They were logs cut in the forests of Mendocino county, to be converted into lumber, and were, at the time of the sale under which the defendant claims, as well as at the time of the execution sale under which the plaintiff claims, scattered for a distance of several miles along the stream of water by which they were to be conveyed to the mill. The court below instructed the jury:

These instructions were clearly contradictory and misleading. Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

.We concur: McKee, J.; McKinstry, J.