TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leet v. Wadsworth & Meisegaes

R. T. LEET v. WADSWORTH & MEISEGAES, and others

Leet v. Wadsworth & Meisegaes, 5 Cal. 404 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1855
Judges
Heydenfeldt
Citations
5 Cal. 404
Syllabus
The purchase of property hy a factor in his own name, makes him to all the world the apparent owner, and as far as affects the rights of third persons, his power is unlimited. He has the right to sell or pledge.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. Replevin for a certain quantity of lard alleged to be the property of plaintiff, in the possession of the defendants, under a pledge from one Henry Gallagher. The main question presented by the evidence is, whether an innocent pledgee for value is entitled to retain his lien upon a quantity of lard delivered to him in pledge by a jobber in groceries, doing business also as commission merchant or factor, the lard having been purchased by said jobber and factor with money furnished him by another, under instructions to buy for him and hold for profit, but purchased by the agent in his own name, stored in his own name, storage paid for by agent during a period of eighteen months, twice pledged by agent for his own debt,—the principal, in the meantime, being frequently in San Francisco, in intimacy with the agent, and no distinct knowledge of the pledging being brought home to the principal. The Court charged the jury in favor of the plaintiff. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The Court overruled a motion for a new trial, and defendants appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Heydenfeldt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

At common law, the business of a factor was merely to sell the goods of his customers; so it followed that his possession was no evidence of his ownership; and as he was not allowed to pledge the goods of his principal, in ease he did so the pledgee was chargeable with notice of the true owner’s right.

It is no part of the business of a factor to buy, and when he does, the rule must be the same in regard to him as to all other purchasers. The purchase of property in his own name, makes him to all the world the apparent owner, and as far as affects the rights of third persons, his power over the goods is unlimited—he has the right to sell or pledge. ■

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1858–1859: 11890–1891: 11894–1895: 118582026peak 1858 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Weyse v. Crawford24 P. 735 (Cal. 1890)
  2. Dewing v. Hutton21 S.E. 780 (W. Va. 1895)
  3. Bragg v. Meyer4 F. Cas. 4 (1858)

Most recent

  1. Dewing v. Hutton21 S.E. 780 (W. Va. 1895)
  2. Weyse v. Crawford24 P. 735 (Cal. 1890)
  3. Bragg v. Meyer4 F. Cas. 4 (1858)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list