From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Harter

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1861
18 Cal. 76 (Cal. 1861)

Summary

In Brown v. Harter, 18 Cal. 76, the court said, in explaining some possible obscurity in the opinion in HancockDitch Co. v. Bradford, 13 Cal. 637: "The Practice Act does not give an arbitrary right to become nonsuit after the case has been finally submitted to the jury, though it exists at any timebefore such final submission and their retirement."

Summary of this case from Goldtree v. Spreckels

Opinion

         Appeal from the Fifth District.

         Suit for a mining claim. After the Court below had instructed the jury, they retired, and being unable to agree, returned for further instructions, which having been given, the jury again retired, and being still unable to agree, came into Court, when the Court, of its own motion, instructed them to find for defendant, plaintiff excepting, and demanding permission to become nonsuited, and that the same be entered before the jury again retired. Permission denied, and the jury instructed to find for defendant, which was done accordingly, plaintiff excepting. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

         COUNSEL:

         L. Quint, for Appellant, cited Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford , 13 Cal. 637.

          H. P. Barber, for Respondent, cited Practice Act, sec. 148; 13 Cal. 637.


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

         OPINION

          BALDWIN, Judge

         The points on this appeal are merely technical. They have either been decided heretofore or are not of difficulty. The only one we think it necessary to notice is the refusal to permit the nonsuit after the jury had retired. Some obscurity possibly exists in the opinion in Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford , 13 Cal. 637, in the definition of the word " trial," as used in the one hundred and forty-eighth section of the Practice Act; but the expressions used are explained in the subsequent portions of the opinion.

         The Practice Act does not give an arbitrary right to become nonsuit after the case has been finally submitted to the jury, though it exists at any time before such final submission and their retirement.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Brown v. Harter

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1861
18 Cal. 76 (Cal. 1861)

In Brown v. Harter, 18 Cal. 76, the court said, in explaining some possible obscurity in the opinion in HancockDitch Co. v. Bradford, 13 Cal. 637: "The Practice Act does not give an arbitrary right to become nonsuit after the case has been finally submitted to the jury, though it exists at any timebefore such final submission and their retirement."

Summary of this case from Goldtree v. Spreckels
Case details for

Brown v. Harter

Case Details

Full title:BROWN v. HARTER, Administrator

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1861

Citations

18 Cal. 76 (Cal. 1861)

Citing Cases

Patterson v. Superior Court

In that connection, as far as they relate to a matter of the character of that here under consideration, no…

Sheldon v. Gunn

And such right exists at any time before the final submission of the case. (Brown v. Harter , 18 Cal. 76;…