Brotherton v. Hart
11 Cal. 405
This text of 11 Cal. 405 (Brotherton v. Hart) 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
Brotherton v. Hart, 11 Cal. 405 (Cal. 1858).
Opinion
Field, J., concurring.
In this case the parties, by stipulation, consented that the motion for a new trial should be denied. Having consented to the order, they cannot now question its correctness. (Meerholtz v. Sessions, 9 Cal. 277.)
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Gallegos v. Kia Motors CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Gibson v. Berryman
111 P. 926 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Hibernia Savings Etc. Soc. v. Waymire
92 P. 645 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
City & County San Francisco v. Certain Real Estate
42 Cal. 513 (California Supreme Court, 1872)
Mecham v. McKay
37 Cal. 154 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
11 Cal. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brotherton-v-hart-cal-1858.