Rogers v. Gilmore

California Supreme Court July 1, 1876

Rogers v. Gilmore, 51 Cal. 309 (Cal. 1876)

Opinion of the Court

The Chief Justice,

speaking for the Court, said:

The statute requires that the officer should take the. property into custody. And it seems by the authorities that what that means is governed somewhat by the situation or relation of the parties making the contest.

It is supposed that as against Gilmore himself there was sufficient custody of this property to hold it. Against another attaching creditor there may not have been. Against a purchaser from Gilmore in good faith, there may not have been. But the Court is of the opinion that the defendants purchasing from him with notice of the attachment, it is a sufficient custody as against them.

The result is, that the judgment and order must be affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: JOHN ROGERS v. S. F. GILMORE, W. W. FERGUSON, THOMAS ARRIVEY and T. J. KENNEDY
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Attachment of Pkbsonal Pbopeety.—If a sheriff attaches personal property, consisting of a portable steam threshing engine and accompanying articles used for threshing, by making a memorandum of the property and delivering a copy of the attachment, summons, and complaint, to the defendant, and then directing verbally a person who is at work one hundred yards from the place where the property lies to look after it. and if any one meddles with it to tell them it is attached, he has sufficient custody of the property as against persons purchasing it from the defendant with knowledge of the attachment.