Angus v. Plum
54 P. 97, 121 Cal. 608, 1898 Cal. LEXIS 962
Opinion
The judgment in this case must be affirmed on the authority of San Gabriel Co. v. Witmer Co., 96 Cal. 623. The clause of the constitution upon which the rights of parties depend was construed in that case, and the court was very evenly divided. We are now asked to overrule the decision then made, but, whether that decismn was right or wrong, it has been since acted upon, and was acted upon by the parties to this contro[609]*609versy, and we consider that it is protected by the rule of stare decisis.
J udgment affirmed.
Temple, J., dissented.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Angus v. Plum, 54 P. 97, 121 Cal. 608, 1898 Cal. LEXIS 962 (Cal. 1898).
54 P. 97 (Angus v. Plum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State of California v. Superior Court
58 P.2d 1322 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
People v. Gordon
274 Ill. 462 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1916)
William Ede Co. v. Heywood
96 P. 81 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Henry v. Garden City Bank & Tr. Co. of San Jose
78 P. 228 (California Supreme Court, 1904)