Helm v. Dumars

California Supreme Court October 15, 1853

Helm v. Dumars, 3 Cal. 454 (Cal. 1853)

Heydenfeldt

Opinion of the Court

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

Some of the conclusions of law attained by the court below may properly be complained of as erroneous, but a judgment which is right will not be reversed, because it was rendered upon a wrong reason.

From the facts found, the plaintiff made an absolute sale of the property to Fuller, with such a right of property as was subject to execution.

*457If the plaintiff intended to retain any lien upon the property to secure the balance of the purchase-money, as is shown by the finding, such purpose was not carried out so as to make an effective lien. There was no such agreement in writing, nor did the plaintiff as mortgagee retain possession. The property was in the use, and under the complete control and direction, of Fuller, and to try to escape the legal consequences of this condition, by showing that the property was in the possession of Fuller’s hired servant, as agent or trustee, would be an attempt to evade the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: HELM v. DUMARS & WILLIAMS
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: A judgment which is right will not be reversed because it is rendered upon a wrong reason. Fuller purchased some yokes of oxen of Helm, the appellant, for $1000, paid $200 down, and gave his note, with C. as surety, for the balance; C. signed the note on the express condition that title to the oxen was to remain in Helm till they were fully paid for. Fuller was to have the 'absolute use of them. The oxen were placed in the hands of a brother of Helm, who was in the employ of Fuller, as a driver, with the intention of securing the title in Helm. The defendant, a constable, levied upon and sold the oxen, thus situated, as the property of Fuller. Held, that the sale by Helm to Fuller was absolute, and that Fuller had such a right of property in them as was subject to execution. That Helm retained no effective lien upon the property. There was no agreement in writing to that effect, nor did Helm, as mortgagee, retain possession; but it was under the control and direction of Fuller. The legal consequences of this condition of things cannot be evaded by showing that the property was in the possession of Fuller’s hired servant as agent or trustee.