Seligman v. Armando

Citations

• 94 Cal. 314
• 29 P. 710
• 1892 Cal. LEXIS 680

Syllabus

<p>Claim and Delivery — Action by Receiver of Insolvent Debtor — Sufficiency of Evidence.—The evidence in this ease held sufficient to sustain the findings as to the value of property transferred by an insolvent debtor to the defendant, who was her sister, and as to the defendant’s knowledge of the insolvency at the time of the removal of the goods, and to sustain a judgment in favor of the receiver of the insolvent debtor for the recovery of the property.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence — Knowledge of Contemplated Insolvency—Ruling without Prejudice. — The defendant having testified that at the time when she bought the goods of her sister she did not know that her sister was insolvent, and in reply to subsequent questions stated that she made no inquiry as to her financial condition, and supposed that the business was “going good with them,” it is not prejudicial error for the court to sustain an objection to a question asked of the defendant as to whether she knew at the time that her sister contemplated going into insolvency.</p> <p>Id.-—Mingling of Goods — Alternative Judgment.—In an action of claim and delivery, where the evidence shows that the goods were confused and mixed with other goods belonging to the defendant, so that they were not distinguishable, it is not necessary that a judgment for the plaintiff should be in the alternative form.</p> <p>Pleading—Special Demurrer — Uncertainty—Waiver of Objection — Appeal. — Objections against a complaint which should have been made by demurrer on the ground of uncertainty cannot be urged upon appeal, where no demurrer has been filed in the trial court.</p>