Brown v. Harter

18 Cal. 76
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

The points on this appeal are merely technical. They have [77] either been decided heretofore or are not of difficulty. The only one we think it necessary to notice is the refusal to permit the non-suit after the jury had retired. Some obscurity possibly exists in the opinion in Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford, (13 Cal. 637) in the definition of the word “ trial,” as used in the one hundred and forty-eighth section of the Practice Act; but the expressions used are explained in the subsequent portions of the opinion.

The Practice Act does not give an arbitrary right to become nonsuit after the case has been finally submitted to the jury, though it exists at any time before such final submission and their retirement.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Brown v. Harter, 18 Cal. 76 (Cal. 1861).

18 Cal. 76 (Brown v. Harter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abbott v. Limited Mutual Compensation Insurance Co.
85 P.2d 961 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Molen v. Denning & Clark Livestock Co.
50 P.2d 9 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1935)
Patterson v. Superior Court
30 P.2d 68 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Guzmán v. Vidal
8 P.R. Dec. 345 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1905)
Goldtree v. Spreckels
67 P. 1091 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Westbay v. Gray
48 P. 800 (California Supreme Court, 1897)