American Multigraph Sales Co. v. Charles W. Cradick Co.
AMERICAN MULTIGRAPH SALES COMPANY (A Corporation), Appellant, v. CHARLES W. CRADICK COMPANY (A Corporation), Respondent
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- Harry A. Hollzer
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thompson (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
*591 the defendant, who may have his action thereon.” Section 520 of the same code provides that the notice, undertaking and affidavit originally handed to the sheriff, together with his proceedings thereon shall be delivered to the clerk within twenty days after the property is taken. That the plaintiff here sought and was allowed a provisional remedy there can be no doubt. That the first-quoted section provides a manner and method whereby the defendant may obtain relief in such a case as this is equally free from doubt. That the defendant would also have an action against the plaintiff for the wrongful taking and conversion of the property is the holding in Tapscott v. Lyon, 103 Cal. 297 [37 Pac. 225], involving a similar dismissal after answer filed. But it must be apparent that after the dismissal of the action the court was -without authority to render a judgment in favor of the defendant, for the reason that nothing was therein pending.
Judgment reversed.
Craig, J., concurred.
Works, P. J., being absent, did not participate in this opinion. ■
Cites, in this corpus
- Tapscott v. Lyon No. 18239 · 1894-06-27