From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Munroe v. Thomas

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1855
5 Cal. 470 (Cal. 1855)


         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."


         Marshall & Mott, and Weller, Johnson & Morrison, for Respondent.

          R. S. Mesick, for Appellant.

         No briefs on file.

         JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.


          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         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.

Affirmed, Wood v. Truckee Turnpike Co. 24 Cal. 474; Thomas v. Armstrong , 7 Cal. 286;

People Duncan

Summaries of

Munroe v. Thomas

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1855
5 Cal. 470 (Cal. 1855)
Case details for

Munroe v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:Catharine Munroe, Respondent, v. Lucius W. Thomas, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1855


5 Cal. 470 (Cal. 1855)

Citing Cases

People v. Lawley

That the franchise in question is property within the meaning of section 1044 of the Civil Code is a…

Kenniff v. Caulfield

Proof of the substance is sufficient. (Posten v. Rassette, 5 Cal. 470; Collier v. Corbett, 15 Cal. 186;…