Case Name: J. S. SHELDON and EMILY C. SHELDON v. C. S. LOOMIS
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1865-04
Citations: 28 Cal. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. S. SHELDON and EMILY C. SHELDON v. C. S. LOOMIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
J. S. SHELDON and EMILY C. SHELDON v. C. S. LOOMIS.
Verdict of Sheriff's Jury on Claim of Property.—Where property is levied on by a Constable or Sheriff, by virtue of an attachment or execution, as the property of the defendant in the suit, and is claimed by a third party, and a jury is called to try the right of property under the claim, and the verdict of the jury is against the claimant, this verdict is no protection to the 9fficer in a suit brought against him by the claimant,.nor is it admissible in evidence as a defense.
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Solano County. <
The defendant was a constable in Solano County, and an attachment and execution were placed in his hands, issued in the suit of F. <& M. Dinlcenspiel v. J. D. Perhins. By virtue of the writs defendant levied on a quantity of personal property as the property of Perkins. Plaintiffs laid claim to the property. This suit" was brought to recover possession of the same. Plaintiffs recovered judgment, and defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court..
M. A. Wheaton, for Appellant.
Swan & Hays, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Sawyer, J.
This is an action to recover a quantity of lumber. Defendant justifies the taking and detention under an attachment and execution issued in the suit of Frank et al. v. Perkins. Defendant offered in evidence the proceedings before a constable's jury to try the right of property on a claim made by plaintiffs in pursuance of sections two hundred and eighteen and six hundred and two of the Practice Act, and the verdict of the constable's jury against the plaintiffs in that proceeding/ The evidence was excluded on objection by plaintiffs, and defendant excepted. This verdict did not protect the constable, and was properly excluded. (Perkins v. Thornburgh, 10 Cal. 191.)
We see no error of law, and cannot say that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.