Comerford v. Dupuy

17 Cal. 308
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

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.

Bluebook
Comerford v. Dupuy, 17 Cal. 308 (Cal. 1861).

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

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

Blevins v. Mullally
135 P. 307 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Merritt v. Hill
37 P. 893 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Hahn v. Garratt
10 P. 329 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Albright v. Bruner
14 Ill. App. 319 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1884)
Logan v. Gedney
38 Cal. 579 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Gregg v. Gregg
55 Pa. 227 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1868)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Cal. 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comerford-v-dupuy-cal-1861.