The record-union., 1897-05-22
AN INTERESTING DECISION.
Why the Sheriff Could Not Hold the
Yosemite Saloon.
Points on Which the How we-BeckWitn-
Johnson Case Was Az
firmed.

In the case of S. Luke Howe an0
Charles NJ Beckwith, respondents
against Frank T. Johnson, appellant
the Supreme Court, in affirming the
judgment OF the Superior Court, mas
rendered an interesting decision.
The action was brought to recover
$500 damages for the unlawful taxing
and conversion of a stock OF liquors.
bar fixtures and furniture, the properly
of L. Koch, and by him assigned TO the
plaintiffs, December 81, 1893.
The defendant, before the trial court,
denied the allegations of the complaint
and justified the taking of the properly
by showing that he was SherlH Oh sac
ramento County; that in an ACTON III
which T. 3. Hall was plaintlf, ana l..
J. Wells, defendant, in the Justice Court
,of Sacramento Township, writ OF at
tachment was duly issued and placed
in his hands for execution, and that py
virtue of the writ he levied upon ana
took possession Of the property OF
Wells.
The answer further showed that a
Judgment was subsequently obtained IN
the action against Wells. and that an
execution was issued thereon, under
which the defendant sold the prop
erty.
The cause was tried and the court
found that all the allegations of the
complaint We're true, except that the
value of the property taken was 1913
instead of $500 and except that the ar
1icleS taken by the defendant were
those described in his answer. There
upon judgment was rendered in favor
of the plaintiffs
From this judgment the denfendant
appealed The testimony taken at the
trial showed that Wells kept a saloon
on ] street, in 1895, and owned the
stock, including fixtures, etc. Koch
tended bar for him from October 18th
to December Goth, for which he re-
sceived no pay Wells also owed Koch
another 800, making the sum of in
debtedness S240 Wells could not pay,
and subsequently Koch Cancelled the
debt. paid Wells another 500 and took
the stock, fixtures, etc, and having no
license locked up the saloon and carried
the key.
On the Both day of December. the de-
fendant being Sheriff of Sacramento
County, levied upon and took possession
of the property as the property OF
Wells. under writ of attachment in
favor of T. B. Hall and against Wells,
and on the next day Koch transferred
to the plaintiffs. Howe and Beckwith,
a bill of sale for all the property.
On January 6, 1896, the plaintiffs
arade demand upon the defendant for
the property which was refused, the
defendant denying that Koch was the
owner of the property, or that he trans
tn the nl9infiffS and citing
that the saloon sign bore Wells name
at the time the attachment was made.
The appellant contended that the sale
from Wells to Koch was void under
Section 34IO of the Civil Code. for want
.of IAN immediate delivery. and followed
by an actual and continued change OF
possession"
The Supreme Court held that the lat
ter contention was not supported by
evidence. citing that Koch had ceased
10 be in the employ Of Wells before
4he sale was made. and that the latter
was not shown to have been about the
place after the sale was made.
1t was further held that Wells had
not. according to the evidence, done
ANYTHING to hinder, delay or defraud
his creditors. and that he had sold to
these circumstances the evidence war
ranted the lower court in finding in
favor of the plaintiffs.
AS regards the appellants contention
that the conversion of the property took
place on the Both day of December.
1895, when the defendant took posses
sion, and that thereafter Koch only
had a cause of action against the de-
fendant and that his bill of sale of the
property. made December 31st, or the
next day, transferred no interest in the
property to plaintiffs upon which they
could maintain an action, the Supreme
Court held that all authorities agree in
such cases the title does not pass to
the wrong-d doer upon conversion, and
not until judgment obtained for the
value of the chattel.
Koch. then" the decision states, II
his purchase of the goods was valid
one. had title thereto at the time of his
sale TO plaintiff, and the latter, after
acquiring such title, might lawfully
make demand for their return as pro-
vided by statute, and upon failure or
refusal by defendant to yield up pos
session could maintain an action for