Comerford v. Dupuy
This text of 17 Cal. 308 (Comerford v. Dupuy) 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.
Opinion
Fields, C. J. concurring.
The judgment must be affirmed. The criticism of the answer in this case cannot be maintained ; at least, the defects suggested were not sufficient to sustain the motion to strike out. We cannot interfere with the discretion of the Court in refusing a new trial.
We think a party cannot recover for injuries done by cattle of / defendant breaking into plaintiff’s close, unless the land entered be inclosed by a fence of the character prescribed in the statute, or at least, by an inclosure equivalent to that described in the statute in /its capacity to exclude cattle. (See Pennsylvania cases cited in respondents’ brief.)
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 Cal. 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comerford-v-dupuy-cal-1861.