Buckley v. Manife

California Supreme Court

Buckley v. Manife

3 Cal. 441

DecidedOctober 15, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cal. 441 (Buckley v. Manife) 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

Buckley v. Manife, 3 Cal. 441 (Cal. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.

We have heretofore decided, that under the statute a defendant cannot be a witness for his co-defendant, when the defence is general, and would operate in discharge of both. It is now urged, that in the present case but one defendant was upon trial, [443]*443the other not having been served with process in time. But this cannot alter the rule. A verdict upon the issue, which appears on the record in favor of one defendant, would be conclusive in an action against the other.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.

We have heretofore decided, that under the statute a defendant cannot be a witness for his co-defendant, when the defence is general, and would operate in discharge of both. It is now urged, that in the present case but one defendant was upon trial, [443]*443the other not having been served with process in time. But this cannot alter the rule. A verdict upon the issue, which appears on the record in favor of one defendant, would be conclusive in an action against the other.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cal. 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-manife-cal-1853.