Comerford v. Dupuy

17 Cal. 308
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

17 Cal. 308 (Comerford v. Dupuy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)