From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Estell v. Chenery

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1853
3 Cal. 467 (Cal. 1853)

Opinion

         Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District, Solano County.

         This was an action for services, alleged by plaintiff to have been rendered by him to defendants, in corralling and separating cattle, for the keep of the cattle, for the use of horses, and the loss of horses incurred in the service so alleged to have been rendered.

         The defendant, Chenery, who alone was served with process, denied all and singular the services, all the allegations, and all indebtedness; and set out that he had bought certain cattle from plaintiff, who was to deliver them free of expense; and the services, if rendered at all, were for plaintiff's own benefit, etc.

         There was no evidence returned with the record, and no waiver of a trial by jury is noted, if it was agreed to.

         In this state of the record, the following entry appears:

         " This action being called for trial, the plaintiff being present, and the defendant, Chenery, who has heretofore answered, being absent, the Court, after hearing the evidence, and being advised of the law, decides that the defendants are indebted to the said plaintiff in the sum of $ 3785; and that said plaintiff ought to recover judgment against the said defendants in that amount. Let judgment be entered accordingly."

         From this judgment defendants appealed.

         COUNSEL

          Crockett and Baker, for Appellants.


         There was no service, no appearance for any defendant, except Chenery, and the judgment is general against all.

         There was no valid waiver of a jury trial by defendants. The Court did not state the facts found, nor state separately the conclusions of law.

         JUDGES: Murray, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         The plaintiff commenced his action in the Court below against Chenery and others, as copartners. Service was had on Chenery alone, who answered, denying all the allegations. No default was taken as to the other defendants, and upon the final hearing of the cause, the Court rendered a joint judgment against all.

         There is no sufficient finding of the facts and conclusions of law by the Court below to sustain the judgment, the verdict being general.

         Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.


Summaries of

Estell v. Chenery

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1853
3 Cal. 467 (Cal. 1853)
Case details for

Estell v. Chenery

Case Details

Full title:JAMES M. ESTELL, Respondent, v. RICHARD CHENERY et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1853

Citations

3 Cal. 467 (Cal. 1853)

Citing Cases

Speer v. See Yup Co.

         There is no finding of facts in the case. (Estell v. Chenery , 3 Cal. 467; Burger v. Baker, 4…