J. H. Coghill & Co. v. Boring

Citations

• 15 Cal. 213

Syllabus

<p>In an action to recover the possession of personal property, with damages for its detention, the judgment may be for more than the value as alleged in the complaint, if it be within the ad damnum of the writ. The value of the property is only one predicate of the recovery.</p> <p>Where goods are seized by the Sheriff on an execution against G., and the owners of the goods, so in the Sheriff’s hands, assign them to plaintiff, who replevins them on the ground of fraud in the original sales, the assignors are competent witnesses for plaintiff. This is not assigning a chose in action, but a sale of specific goods.</p> <p>A witness is not disqualified, because of a mere expectation of deriving, from a suit, some advantage, to which he is not legally entitled.</p> <p>A bill of sale of “ all the goods and merchandise and property we own, have or have an interest in, in a store in Nevada, county of Nevada, formerly occupied by Bailey Gatzert, and now in the possession of the Sheriff of Nevada county, said goods forwarded by us to Bailey Gatzert, Nevada,” contains a sufficient description of the goods.</p> <p>To enable a vendor of goods to rescind the sale, he must offer to return the notes given for the goods; but this offer can be made at, or any time before, the trial.</p> <p>In a suit to recover goods on the ground of fraud in the vendee, the admission of evidence that he was insolvent two months after the purchase, is not sufficient to reverse the judgment, unless it is clearly shown that the evidence was irrelevant, and injurious to the party objecting.</p>