Gray v. Corey

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,694

Attorney(S)

Albert Hogan and J. H. Logan, for the Appellant, argued that there was a sufficient delivery and change of possession; and cited, Ford v. Chambers, 28 Cal. 13; Lay v. Neville, 25 Cal. 545; Godchaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 316; Jewett v. Warren, 12 Mass. 300, and Ricker v. Goss, 5 N.H. 570. Heacock & Adams, for the Respondent, argued that there was no delivery or change of possession; and cited, Dickey v. Davis, 39 Cal. 567; Woods v. Bugby, 29 Cal. 466, and Whitney v. Stark , 8 Cal. 514.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,694

Attorney(S)

Albert Hogan and J. H. Logan, for the Appellant, argued that there was a sufficient delivery and change of possession; and cited, Ford v. Chambers, 28 Cal. 13; Lay v. Neville, 25 Cal. 545; Godchaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 316; Jewett v. Warren, 12 Mass. 300, and Ricker v. Goss, 5 N.H. 570. Heacock & Adams, for the Respondent, argued that there was no delivery or change of possession; and cited, Dickey v. Davis, 39 Cal. 567; Woods v. Bugby, 29 Cal. 466, and Whitney v. Stark , 8 Cal. 514.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

RICHARD GRAY v. WILLIAM COREY

JUDGES: McKinstry, J. Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.

OPINION

McKINSTRY, Judge

The Court below held that there was not an actual or immediate delivery and continued change of possession of the personal property sued for in this action, so as to render the sale valid as against the creditors of Donnellan. We think this conclusion is sustained by the finding of facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

RICHARD GRAY v. WILLIAM COREY

Comments