Rector v. Thompson

Citations

• 26 Wash. 400
• 67 P. 86
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 659

Syllabus

<p>CONVERSION-EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY.</p> <p>Iu an action for the conversion of cattle, a letter by plaintiffs attorneys to some of the defendants who had possession of them, that the cattle had been stolen and that steps would be taken to recover their value unless surrendered to the owner, is admissible in evidence to show notice, although containing irrelevant and incompetent matters, which had already been excluded as incompetent.</p> <p>SAME — -LIABILITY OF RECEIVERS OF STOLEN PROPERTY.</p> <p>The fact that the original taking was by one of the defendants who shipped the cattle by rail consigned to himself to be delivered at the stock yards of the other defendants, would not entitle the latter to a non-suit, where they had actual notice that the original taking was wrongful.</p> <p>CHANGE OF VENUE-TIMELINESS OF MOTION.</p> <p>A motion for a change of venue comes too late, where it is interposed at the close of plaintiff’s case, upon the dismissal from the case of the only defendant residing in the county where the trial was had, when there is no showing that such defendant had been made a party in bad faith for the purpose of enabling the venue to be laid in such county, since Bal. Code, § 4856, provides that a defendant entitled to a change of venue must apply therefor “at the time he appears and demurs or answers.”</p>