Adams v. Gorham
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Horr v. Barker (Cal. 1858)
- Cook v. Hathaway (San Fran. Dist Ct 1857)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
This action being for the recovery of specific property, it was necessary to show, as against the sheriff, that the portion claimed by the plaintiffs had been severed, and designated from the bulk out of which it was sold. Otherwise there is no mode of identification. This results from the character and nature of the action.
But, in favor of the other defendants, Tilden & Little, the same reasoning cannot be invoked. They were warehouse men, and gave their receipt for three hundred barrels of flour. This was specific, and they.are estopped from denying their liability. It is very similar to the case of Chapman v. Searle, 3 Pickering, cited by respondent.
The Court below should have given judgment for plaintiffs, against Tilden & Little, and judgment for defendant, Gorham.
Non-suit set aside, and case remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.