Eaton v. Metz

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 59
• 40 P. 947
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1148

Syllabus

<p>Wrongful Attachment.—In an Action Against an Officer for property levied on under an attachment against plaintiff’s vendor, an averment by defendant that the sale to plaintiff was made with the design on his part, and on the part of his vendor, to delay and defraud the creditors of the grantor, and to prevent the application of the property to the satisfaction of their demands, does not authorize the admission of evidence of actual fraud.</p> <p>Wrongful Attachment.—In an Action of Claim and Delivery against an officer on account of a levy under an attachment against plaintiff’s vendor, defendant may, under a denial of plaintiff's title, show that there was not an immediate delivery or continued change of possession as between plaintiff and .his vendor, and he need not specially plead such faets.1</p>