Cox v. McLaughlin

California Supreme Court

Cox v. McLaughlin

18 P. 111, 2 Cal. Unrep. 858, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 975

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 1, 1888

DocketNo. 12,220

StatusPublished

This text of 18 P. 111 (Cox v. McLaughlin) 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

Cox v. McLaughlin, 18 P. 111, 2 Cal. Unrep. 858, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 975 (Cal. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CURIAM.

This appeal is taken by the plaintiff from the judgment, which was in his favor; and the point is made that a portion of one finding is not sustained by the evidence. The judgment must be affirmed, so far as this appeal is concerned—First, because, if we can take the facts stated in the bill of exceptions as the evidence, it fully sustains the finding; and, second, waiving the objections that the appeal was not taken in time, there is no bill of exceptions stating the evidence. The bill of exceptions merely sets forth other findings; proceeds to state that such facts were established by the evidence. This is not a statement of so much of the evidence as may be necessary to explain the point made. It is not a statement of evidence at all, but a general conclusion that certain facts were established by the evidence. This is not a compliance with the statute. It is really an effort to array one portion of the finding against another. The judgment is affirmed, subject to the appeal on the part of defendant.

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

Per CURIAM.

This appeal is taken by the plaintiff from the judgment, which was in his favor; and the point is made that a portion of one finding is not sustained by the evidence. The judgment must be affirmed, so far as this appeal is concerned—First, because, if we can take the facts stated in the bill of exceptions as the evidence, it fully sustains the finding; and, second, waiving the objections that the appeal was not taken in time, there is no bill of exceptions stating the evidence. The bill of exceptions merely sets forth other findings; proceeds to state that such facts were established by the evidence. This is not a statement of so much of the evidence as may be necessary to explain the point made. It is not a statement of evidence at all, but a general conclusion that certain facts were established by the evidence. This is not a compliance with the statute. It is really an effort to array one portion of the finding against another. The judgment is affirmed, subject to the appeal on the part of defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 P. 111, 2 Cal. Unrep. 858, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-mclaughlin-cal-1888.