Asbill v. Standley

Citations

• 3 Cal. Unrep. 665
• 31 P. 738
• 1892 Cal. LEXIS 1059

Syllabus

<p>Sale—Change of Possession.—In an Action to Recover certain mares and colts seized on an execution against plaintiff’s husband, plaintiff testified that her husband sold her sixteen mares in satisfaction of a debt. The mares were pastured on the husband’s land prior to the sale, and were branded with his brand, but at the time of the sale they were brought to the corral, vented with the husband’s brand, and then branded with plaintiff’s brand. A bill of sale was also given, and they were then turned.back on the range where they had been before, and cared for, at seasons requiring care, by men hired and paid by plaintiff. Held, that there was sufficient delivery and change of possession of the property.</p> <p>Sale—Fraud.—Evidence as to Whether Plaintiff in 1889 gave in to the assessor the ranch as her property could not affect the validity of her purchase of the mares in question in the preceding July, and did not tend to show fraud in the transaction, and was therefore properly excluded.</p> <p>Verdict—Uncertainty.—A Verdict will not he Set Aside on the ground that it is so uncertain that the judgment thereon cannot be executed, when such objection is presented on the judgment-roll alone, and there is no bill of exceptions presenting the facts sustaining the contention of the uncertainty of the verdict, and when the answer of defendant sheriff also shows a familiarity with the property referred to in the verdict.</p>