Cahoon v. Levy

California Supreme Court

Cahoon v. Levy

5 Cal. 294, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 115

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 294 (Cahoon v. Levy) 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

Cahoon v. Levy, 5 Cal. 294, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 115 (Cal. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., and Bryan, J., concurred.

It is only necessary to consider one of the questions raised by the appellants. The case in the Court below involved the determination of certain issues of fact, and the plaintiffs demanded a trial by jury, which was denied. We have held, that in Chancery cases, the parties have no right to demand a trial by jury, but we are of opinion that in all cases at law, it is a right which can be insisted upon and enforced. The doctrine of garnishment is part of the common law derived from the custom of London, and although it is here partially regulated by statute, it is not the less a common law proceeding.

As it is impossible to say how the issues will be determined upon another trial, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other assignments of error. For the one already noticed, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., and Bryan, J., concurred.

It is only necessary to consider one of the questions raised by the appellants. The case in the Court below involved the determination of certain issues of fact, and the plaintiffs demanded a trial by jury, which was denied. We have held, that in Chancery cases, the parties have no right to demand a trial by jury, but we are of opinion that in all cases at law, it is a right which can be insisted upon and enforced. The doctrine of garnishment is part of the common law derived from the custom of London, and although it is here partially regulated by statute, it is not the less a common law proceeding.

As it is impossible to say how the issues will be determined upon another trial, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other assignments of error. For the one already noticed, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 294, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cahoon-v-levy-cal-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack