Harloe

Harloe v. Berwick

Good Law
1902 Cal. LEXIS 916·7 Cal. Unrep. 58·70 P. 1060
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 16, 1902L. A. No. 1164California838 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Claim and delivery. The answer is a general denial of plaintiff’s complaint, and a further answer that the personal property in question belonged to defendants Mrs. Berwick and W. Schnocker when taken into possession by plaintiff after seizure by the sheriff; also claiming damages in the sum of $300 for the alleged unlawful taking and detention by plaintiff. The cause was tried before a jury, and defendants had a verdict for the return of the property or its value, fixed at the sum of $350, and for damages in the sum of $200, and the court entered judgment accordingly. In due time, plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was ordered by the court. The appeal is by defendants from this order.

The controversy is over certain barley grown on plaintiff’s ranch while under lease to J. C. Berwick and P. C. Cherry. This lease had expired and was surrendered to plaintiff on November 24, 1899, and, by arrangement with plaintiff, Berwick & Cherry were allowed to remain a few days to close up their business. Defendants Mrs. Berwick and W. Schnocker were creditors of Berwick & Cherry, Mrs. Berwick being the wife of J. C. Berwick. The barley in question was sacked and stored in a building…

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.