Majority
p. 301[No. 7,420. Department Two.] M. BERGER v. J. L. DINWIDDIE et al.
Headnote
Pleading—Inconsistent Defenses—Answer—Conversion.Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Superior Court of Sonoma County.
Action for the taking and conversion of goods. The defendants, in their answer, denied specifically each of the allegations in the complaint (including the taking and conversion), and for
p. 302
a separate defense alleged and justified a taking under an execution issued to the defendant Dinwiddie, as Sheriff, upon a judgment in favor of the other defendants against one Prince, whose property at the time of the levy they alleged the goods to be. The pleadings were verified. There was a general verdict, and judgment for the plaintiff.
G. F. and William Sharp, for Appellant.
J. W. Congdon and George Pearce, for Respondent.
There is no bill of exceptions or statement in this case, and we find no error in the proceedings.
Judgment affirmed.