From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. Rigby

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1858
10 Cal. 449 (Cal. 1858)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Yuba.

         COUNSEL:

         Vanclief and Stewart, for Appellant.


         JUDGES: Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Terry, C. J., and Field, J., concurring.

         OPINION

          BALDWIN, Judge

         Arnold leased some furniture to Burnes. During the lease, plaintiff bought it of Arnold, Burnes remaining in possession, and acknowledging plaintiff's title. In this condition, it was levied on by Irwin, on process of Rigby against Arnold. Plaintiff filed this bill to enjoin the sale. Defendants made default, and plaintiff had judgment. The only question is, whether an injunction is proper under such circumstances. The question is not as to a levy on the estate of a lessee, for here the property was seized to pay the debt of a stranger to the title. It is true that the lessee might interpose to protect the title; but he may not choose or be able effectually to do so. The owner, having no immediate right of possession, would be embarrassed in his remedy, and might be entirely remediless, unless some preventive remedy were afforded him. We see no objection to the remedy by injunction. Indeed, in such cases, it is the only speedy, adequate, and unembarrassed remedy the lessor has to vindicate his rights.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Ford v. Rigby

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1858
10 Cal. 449 (Cal. 1858)
Case details for

Ford v. Rigby

Case Details

Full title:FORD v. RIGBY and IRWIN

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1858

Citations

10 Cal. 449 (Cal. 1858)

Citing Cases

Tevis v. Ellis

         In Dunn v. Vail, 7 Martin, La. 436, (Vol. 3, N. S. 603,) an injunction was granted to restrain the…

Woodworth v. Knowlton

Such a contract is not terminated, nor the right of possession restored to the lessor by a demand made by the…