Bunting

Bunting v. Salz

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 1103·3 Cal. Unrep. 193·22 P. 1132
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 16, 1889California1,849 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

This appeal is taken from the judgment and an order denying a new trial. The appeal from the judgment *195 must be dismissed, as it was taken more than one year after the entry of the judgment: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939; Coon v. Grand Lodge, 76 Cal. 354 , 18 Pac. 384 . The action was to recover $750 damages for the conversion of a wagon by the defendants, which the plaintiff claimed to be her property, and taken without her consent. The defendants Salz and Niehaus, and Trefry, a constable, in their answer denied the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint, and justified the alleged conversion on the ground that the property was that of John A. Bunting, and had been seized by Trefry under an attachment, judgment and execution, in an action brought against Bunting by defendants Salz and Niehaus. The facts disclosed by the record are: That John A. Bunting was the child of Mrs. E. M. Bunting, who appears to have resided in New York. He owned a ranch in Alameda county, California, in the year 1883, and with his wife, Fleda O. Bunting, lived there from about the year 1877 until about December, 1883, when, being heavily in debt and apparently unable to extricate himself, he deeded 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.