Case Name: J. W. HUMPHREYS v. W. P. HARKEY
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1881-11
Citations: 59 Cal. 626
Docket Number: No. 7,947
Parties: J. W. HUMPHREYS v. W. P. HARKEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
[No. 7,947.
Department One.]
J. W. HUMPHREYS v. W. P. HARKEY.
Sale of Personal Property—Fraud as to Creditors—Continuous Change of Possession—Sufficiency of Evidence.
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of the County of Sutter. Keyser, J.
Action to recover twenty-six head of stock cattle and six calves, of the value of seven hundred and fifty dollars. The defendant justified as sheriff under an execution against W. F. Nelson, the plaintiffs vendor.
The Court found that, Nelson sold the cattle to the plaintiff •on the twenty-sixth day of November, 1876, and with reference to delivery found as follows:
That on the twenty-sixth day of April, 1876, at his farm in Sutter County, said Nelson delivered the said eighty head of stock to the plaintiff herein, who immediately took them into actual possession, the water being too high to remove them at that time; that on the first day of May, 1876, he took sixty-three head of said stock to his farm, situated in said Sutter County, about four miles from said Nelson’s place, where he kept them until the eighteenth day of June, 1876, when they came back to their former range, where the cows in the band were cared for by Nelson under an agreement theretofore made with plaintiff, that for such service he should be compensated.
And as conclusion of law, the Court found that the sale was accompanied by an immediate delivery and an actual and continued change of possession.
L. J. Ashford, for Appellant.
The only question raised by this appeal as it now comes for the second time before this Court, is as to the continuous possession of the property in suit, by the plaintiff, J. W. Humphreys, from the time of the alleged purchase.
Appellant says it was not; and relies upon the following authorities: Stewart v. Scannell, 8 Cal. 80; Fitzgerald v. Gorham, 4 id. 289; Woods v. Bugbey, 29 id. 467; Watson v. Rodgers, 53 id. 401; Vance v. Boynton, 8 id. 561.
Stabler & Bayne, for Respondent.
Cited: Godchaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 325; Stevens v. Irwin, 15 id. 506, 507; Walden v. Murdock, 23 id. 552; Lay v. Neville, 25 id. 545; Hesthal v. Myles, 53 id. 623; Parks v. Barney, 55 id. 241, 242.

Opinion:
The Court:
We can not say that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings of the Court below, that the sale of the property in controversy was followed by an immediate delivery and an actual and continued change of possession.
Judgment and order affirmed.