TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Munroe v. Thomas

CATHARINE MUNROE v. LUCIUS W. THOMAS

Munroe v. Thomas, 5 Cal. 470 (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. 470
Syllabus
A ferry is a franchise, and is not the subject of levy, sale, or delivery under execution. It involves a personal trust granted by the sovereign upon conditions imposed upon the grantee alone, and his liability cannot be removed by substitution. The term appurtenances used in the return of a levy by a sheriff, is too general, vague, and indefinite, to comprehend in its meaning any personal property as the subject of levy : nothing, therefore, is passed by the sale.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County. Judgment was obtained against the defendant. The Sheriff’s return upon the execution was in the following words : “ Served the within execution on the Linda Ferry, or the interest of the defendant, L. W. Thomas, in and to said ferry, and the appurtenances belonging, this eleventh day of May, 1854, and on the seventh day of June, after full legal notice, as required by law, sold the above interest of defendant in and to the said property to Mr. S. A. Armstrong, for the sum of five hundred dollars.

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.

A ferry is a franchise, and is not the subject of levy, sale, or delivery, under execution. It involves a personal trust granted by the sovereign, upon conditions imposed upon the grantee alone, and his liability cannot be removed by substitution.

The term “ appurtenances,” used in the return of levy by the Sheriff, is too general, vague, and indefinite, to comprehend in its meaning any personal property as the subject of levy; it therefore passed nothing by the sale.

The order is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1864–1865: 11868–1869: 11870–1871: 11876–1877: 11880–1881: 11884–1885: 21892–1893: 11902–1903: 21910–1911: 118642026peak 1884 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People ex rel. Spiers v. Lawley119 P. 1089 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
  2. Kenniff v. Caulfield73 P. 803 (Cal. 1903)
  3. Wood v. Truckee Turnpike Co.24 Cal. 474 (1864)
  4. Coburn v. Ames52 Cal. 385 (1877)
  5. Gregory v. Blanchard33 P. 199 (Cal. 1893)
  6. Hackett & Multnomah Ry. Co. v. Wilson & Montgomery6 P. 652 (Or. 1885)

Most recent

  1. People ex rel. Spiers v. Lawley119 P. 1089 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
  2. Kenniff v. Caulfield73 P. 803 (Cal. 1903)
  3. Evans v. Kroutinger72 P. 882 (Idaho 1903)
  4. Gregory v. Blanchard33 P. 199 (Cal. 1893)
  5. Hackett & Multnomah Ry. Co. v. Wilson & Montgomery6 P. 652 (Or. 1885)
  6. Montgomery v. Multnomah Railway Co.11 Or. 344 (1884)

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