Taylor v. Seymour
TAYLOR v. SEYMOUR
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (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 — Heydenfeldt
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.
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.
Cited by
- Boulware v. Craddock · 1866-07-15