Bates v. Gage

California Supreme Court

Bates v. Gage

49 Cal. 126

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

DocketNo. 3,843

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 49 Cal. 126 (Bates v. Gage) 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

Bates v. Gage, 49 Cal. 126 (Cal. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

The appeal from judgment was not taken within one year after the judgment was entered. (Prac. Act, Sec. 336.)

No motion for a new trial was made after the decision of the Court below was rendered. A portion only of the issues raised by the pleadings were submitted to a jury. The verdict was but advisory, so that all the issues were determined by the Court. In an equity case, where all the issues are not passed on by the jury, the trial is not terminated when the verdict is rendered, and the special verdict is to be regarded as a portion of the findings of the Court.

The view we have taken is not in conflict with Allen v. Hill (16 Cal. 113), nor with Ellsassar v. Hunter (26 Cal. 284), cited by respondent.

Appeal from judgment dismissed and order denying a new trial affirmed.

Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

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

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

The appeal from judgment was not taken within one year after the judgment was entered. (Prac. Act, Sec. 336.)

No motion for a new trial was made after the decision of the Court below was rendered. A portion only of the issues raised by the pleadings were submitted to a jury. The verdict was but advisory, so that all the issues were determined by the Court. In an equity case, where all the issues are not passed on by the jury, the trial is not terminated when the verdict is rendered, and the special verdict is to be regarded as a portion of the findings of the Court.

The view we have taken is not in conflict with Allen v. Hill (16 Cal. 113), nor with Ellsassar v. Hunter (26 Cal. 284), cited by respondent.

Appeal from judgment dismissed and order denying a new trial affirmed.

Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Cal. 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-gage-cal-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack