Gray v. Corey
California Supreme Court
Gray v. Corey, 48 Cal. 208 (Cal. 1874)
McKinstry
Gray v. Corey
Opinion of the Court
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.
Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- RICHARD GRAY v. WILLIAM COREY
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Fbaudulent Sale oe Pebsonal Pbopeety.—B. owned several teams, with which he was engaged in hauling hark for G, Drivers were employed, and D. did not personally superintend the work. The teams were fed and kept nights at a barn on G.’s land, and the drivers slept there. G. met D. at a town several miles from the barn, and bought the teams, and, returning toward the barn, met the teams on the road, and told the drivers of his purchase, and requested them to continue work for him, to which they agreed. He went to the barn the same night, and renewed the arrangement with the drivers, who, the next day, continued hauling bark, and were met by an officer, who attached the teams at the suit of a creditor. Held, that there was not an actual delivery and continued change of possession as required by the Statute of Frauds.