Brown v. Johnson

45 Cal. 76
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1872·No. No. 3,379·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

If at the trial of this action (replevin) it had distinctly ap-. peared that the personal property in controversy- had been hopelessly lost or had been destroyed, so that a judgment for its delivery would be necessarily unavailing, a failure to render judgment for its possession (under Section 200 of the Practice Act) would, at most, be but a technical error or omission,■ and one for which we would not reverse the judgment. And in support of such judgment, where, as here, the record discloses nothing on the -point, we will intend that the facts actually appearing below were such as to warrant its rendition. •

Judgment affirmed.

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

Brown v. Johnson, 45 Cal. 76 (Cal. 1872).

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

Related

Hosea v. Brather
163 P.2d 760 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Griffith v. Reddick
182 P. 984 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Larson v. Hanson
131 N.W. 229 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1911)
Donovan v. Aetna Indemnity Co. of Hartford
103 P. 365 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Erreca v. Meyer
75 P. 826 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Faulkner v. First National Bank
62 P. 463 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
New England Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Bryant
66 N.W. 974 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)
Von Schmidt v. Von Schmidt
38 P. 361 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Caruthers v. Hensley
27 P. 411 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Claudius v. Aguirre
26 P. 1077 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Burke v. Koch
17 P. 228 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Johnson v. Fraser
18 P. 48 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1888)
De Thomas v. Witherby
61 Cal. 92 (California Supreme Court, 1882)