Loose

Loose v. Stanford

Good Law
1896 Cal. LEXIS 1109·5 Cal. Unrep. 366·44 P. 1058
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 8, 1896S. F. No. 11California1,401 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This action was brought December 2, 1891, against the testator, Leland Stanford, to recover possession of a trotting mare commonly known as “Hinda Rose,” or for the recovery of $50,000, the value of said Hinda Rose, in case a delivery of said mare cannot be had, and $25,000 damages, etc. Defendant answered, denying the ownership of plaintiff; averred that about February, 1880, he purchased said Hinda Rose from the plaintiff, and ever since has been, and still is, the owner of, and in possession of, said mare, etc. Defendant further pleads the bar of plaintiff’s cause of action under subdivision 3 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant departed this life pendente lite, and Jane L. Stanford, the executrix of his last will, was substituted as defendant. The claim of plaintiff was presented to the executrix for allowance, and was by her rejected, which matters were set up by supplemental complaint. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, written findings filed, in favor of defendant, upon the issues of ownership and the statute of limitations, upon which findings judgment went for defendant, from which judgment and from an order…

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.