Joshua Hendy Machine Works v. Connolly

Citations

• 76 Cal. 305
• 18 P. 327
• 1888 Cal. LEXIS 881

Syllabus

<p>Sale—Ownebshif—Want of Change of Possession—Findings.—The action was brought by an alleged vendee of personal property to recover the possession thereof from a sheriff who had taken it under a writ of attachment against the vendor. The answer denied the allegations of' the complaint as to the plaintiff’s ownership and possession, and averred that the property belonged to the attachment debtor at the date of the levy, and that the sale to the plaintiff was fraudulent because made for the purpose of defrauding creditors. The main question on the trial was, whether the sale had been accompanied by an immediate delivery and actual and continued change of possession. The court did not specifically find that the sale to the plaintiff was fraudulent, or that the vendor was the owner of the property at the date of the attachment, but it did find that the plaintiff was not the owner. Held, that the findings were sufficient to sustain a judgment for the defendant.</p> <p>Id. —Evidence of Indebtedness ■—Judgment Roll in Attachment Suit. — In such an action, the judgment roll in the attachment suit, if admitted without objection, is sufficient evidence to show an indebtedness to the attaching creditor which antedated the sale to the plaintiff, and justified the issuance of the writ and seizure of the property.</p>