Bagley v. Eaton

California Supreme Court

Bagley v. Eaton

8 Cal. 159, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 316

DecidedJuly 1, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cal. 159 (Bagley v. Eaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bagley v. Eaton, 8 Cal. 159, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 316 (Cal. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The Court below erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The evidence did not warrant the jury in finding for the defendants; and we are bound to believe, from a full examination of the testimony, that the verdict was the result of mistake, prejudice, or corruption.

The Court also erred in admitting in evidence the deed from Pearsons to McMickle, as it was entirely irrelevant, and calculated to withdraw the mind of the jury from the true issue involved in the case.

This is the second time this cáse has been before us, and we trust that it will be correctly disposed of when it is again tried, so that the parties will not be put to the trouble and expense .of coming again to this Court.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The Court below erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The evidence did not warrant the jury in finding for the defendants; and we are bound to believe, from a full examination of the testimony, that the verdict was the result of mistake, prejudice, or corruption.

The Court also erred in admitting in evidence the deed from Pearsons to McMickle, as it was entirely irrelevant, and calculated to withdraw the mind of the jury from the true issue involved in the case.

This is the second time this cáse has been before us, and we trust that it will be correctly disposed of when it is again tried, so that the parties will not be put to the trouble and expense .of coming again to this Court.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cal. 159, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagley-v-eaton-cal-1857.