Daggett

Daggett v. Gray

Good Law
1895 Cal. LEXIS 1214·5 Cal. Unrep. 74·40 P. 959
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 27, 1895No. 19,410California1,030 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This action is brought by the plaintiff, as the receiver of one E. M. Brickey, to recover damages in the sum of $5,500 for the conversion by defendants of a stock of drugs, claimed to have belonged to said E. M. Brickey, and to which plaintiff, as receiver, claimed to be entitled. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for $915 damages, from which judgment, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.

Defendants interposed a demurrer to the complaint upon the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which demurrer was overruled by the court, and the ruling is assigned as error. The complaint may be epitomized thus: By an order of the superior court made March 17, 1893, in the ease of Mollie S. Brickey, Plaintiff, v. Enoch M. Brickey, Defendant, plaintiff was appointed receiver of the property of defendant, with authority to take and keep possession of the property, receive rents, etc., to sue for and demand the property of said Brickey, and to demand from Brickey or Braun & Co. the stock, and fixtures in the drug-store in the Hotel Brewster building, etc. He…

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.