Taylor v. Seymour
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Boulware v. Craddock (Cal. 1866)
- Vose & Co. v. Stickney (Minn. 1862)
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 and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
We think that, as in the ease of Daumiel v. Gorham, 6 Cal., (Jan. Term, 1856,) the officer was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s claim to the goods, and a demand for them.
The fact that the officer had already obtained indemnity, will not affect this right. The notice of another’s claim to the goods might materially affect the character of the indemnity which an officer might require.
The conversation between Taylor and the constable’s bailee of the goods, cannot be held as notice to the constable.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.