Bush v. Lane
| Decision Date | 21 February 1956 |
| Citation | 139 Cal.App.2d 376,293 P.2d 465 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Raymond J. BUSH and Madonna L. Bush, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Elwin LANE, Dorothy I. Lane and Leonard Nix, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 8638. |
Broaddus & Golden, Ukiah, and Wilmer W. Morse, Sacramento, for appellants.
Preston, Falk & Johnson, and Thomas F. Cleland, Ukiah, for respondents.
By their second amended complaint plaintiffs sought to recover from defendants the value of goods sold and delivered to defendants. Following a hearing before the court sitting without a jury, judgment was entered in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied, and they now appeal. It is our conclusion that the judgment and order must be sustained.
The record shows that defendants, by a contract of sale, sold to plaintiffs certain real property known as Lane's Riverdale Resort. As a part of the transaction, plaintiffs executed a quitclaim deed to defendants which, together with other documents, was deposited with a bank as escrow holder. Plaintiffs took possession of the premises in February, 1950, bringing with them various items of personal property. They made payments under the contract until November 1, 1951, when the last payment was made. On December 22, 1951, they closed the resort for the winter, left and returned on January 8, 1952. Immediately thereafter they left for Seattle where they stayed until April when they received word that defendants were repossessing the premises. The quitclaim deed previously mentioned was recorded on April 7, 1952. On the following day defendants entered the premises after obtaining a key from plaintiffs' caretaker and began the taking of an inventory of plaintiffs' personal property then on the premises. On April 10, defendants through their attorneys, mailed a letter to plaintiffs at the resort address which stated in part that plaintiffs' personal property at the resort would be held for them without expense if claimed before April 19, but if plaintiffs failed to remove such effects before the 19th, they would be delivered into the possession of the defendant Nix for packing and transporting to his warehouse at plaintiffs' expense. In accordance with instructions plaintiffs had left with a friend, the letter was forwarded to their attorneys on April 14. Plaintiffs returned on April 17 and without further contact with defendants immediately filed an action for forcible entry against them. That evening plaintiffs called on defendants and demanded the property--whether the realty or personalty does not clearly appear. Assuming that it was the personalty, there is testimony that they could not take it with them at that time. Defendants testified that they did not refuse to deliver the property but only requested that the same be taken in an orderly fashion. On April 18 defendants inspected the storage facilities of defendant Nix, and two days later plaintiffs' goods were stored with him. Thereafter, on July 31, plaintiffs filed the present action.
It is plaintiffs' contention that the evidence established a conversion of their goods by defendants as a matter of law. This the defendants deny and contend in support of the judgment that since their removal of the goods to the warehouse was without intent either to assume control over or to deprive the plaintiffs of their possession of the goods, it could not be a conversion; or if it could be said that the failure of plaintiffs to remove the goods and their charging defendants with responsibility for the property made defendants involuntary bailees for hire, then their acts were strictly in accordance with Civil Code, § 1503.
Although at the trial plaintiffs made no claim to the realty, they now so contend.
We conclude,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oge v. Resolute Ins. Co.
...case: Breslow v. City of Lincoln, 122 Neb. 895, 240 N.W. 558; Gulf C. & S.F.R. Co. v. Pratt, Tex.Civ.App. 183 S .W. 103; Bush v. Lane, 139 Cal.App.2d 376, 293 P.2d 465. After defendant stored the vehicle, there was no wrongful detention of possession because plaintiff never did demand its r......
-
Kertz v. Paris
...dominion exercised by the mortgagee is not unlawful and thus not a conversion. Home v. Kramer, 7 Cal.2d 361, 60 P.2d 854; Bush v. Lane, 139 Cal.App.2d 376, 293 P.2d 465. Damages against a lessor for the alleged conversion of the lessee's property are properly refused where it appears that t......
-
Fox v. American Propane, Inc.
...used plaintiffs' furniture in an apartment for which defendant was collecting rent was also a conversion. In Bush v. Lane, 193 Cal.App.2d 376, 293 P.2d 465 (1956), the court held that to establish conversion an Intention or purpose to convert the goods must be shown in addition to the exerc......
-
Bush v. Lane
...and in consideration of their promise to pay therefor. The facts of this case were before this court in the case of Bush v. Lane, 139 Cal.App.2d 376, 293 P.2d 465--petition for hearing in the Supreme Court Because of the appellants' default of a contract of sale whereby they purchased from ......