Bartlett v. City & County of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Bartlett v. City & County of San Francisco

63 Cal. 156, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 386

DecidedFebruary 15, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Cal. 156 (Bartlett v. City & County of San Francisco) 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

Bartlett v. City & County of San Francisco, 63 Cal. 156, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 386 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There are many exceptions to the testimony in this case, reserved by the defendant. They were fully argued, and we have since considered them. We think the testimony related to the condition and circumstances of the city at or about the time of the fire by which the property was destroyed, to recover damages for which this action was brought, and that such testimony was relevant.

It was argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We are of the opinion that this contention is untenable. An exception was reserved to the refusal of the court to give [157]*157an instruction asked by the defendant. On an examination of the charge of the court we are satisfied that the instruction was substantially given in clear and distinct terms. It was not error to refuse to repeat it.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment and order are affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

There are many exceptions to the testimony in this case, reserved by the defendant. They were fully argued, and we have since considered them. We think the testimony related to the condition and circumstances of the city at or about the time of the fire by which the property was destroyed, to recover damages for which this action was brought, and that such testimony was relevant.

It was argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We are of the opinion that this contention is untenable. An exception was reserved to the refusal of the court to give [157]*157an instruction asked by the defendant. On an examination of the charge of the court we are satisfied that the instruction was substantially given in clear and distinct terms. It was not error to refuse to repeat it.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment and order are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Cal. 156, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlett-v-city-county-of-san-francisco-cal-1883.