Dougherty v. FrierMuth

California Supreme Court

Dougherty v. FrierMuth

9 P. 98, 68 Cal. 240, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 795

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 23, 1885

DocketNo. 9259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 P. 98 (Dougherty v. FrierMuth) 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

Dougherty v. FrierMuth, 9 P. 98, 68 Cal. 240, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 795 (Cal. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Ross, J.

— Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed because of a failure of the court to file findings of fact. It is provided by section G34 of the Code of Civil Procedure that such findings may be waived “by consent in writing, filed with the clerk.” The waiver of findings, as said by respondent’s counsel, amounts to no more than waiver of objection to the rendition of judgment without findings. In the present case the attorneys for the plaintiff, who is the appellant, signed a stipulation in writing, in which it was “ agreed that findings in this case are waived.” The stipulation was not filed with the clerk until some days subsequent to the entry of judgment, but we cannot see that that circumstance alters the effect of the stipulation, which we think is to estop the plaintiff from making the objection that no findings were filed.

Judgment affirmed.

McKinstey, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

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

Ross, J.

— Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed because of a failure of the court to file findings of fact. It is provided by section G34 of the Code of Civil Procedure that such findings may be waived “by consent in writing, filed with the clerk.” The waiver of findings, as said by respondent’s counsel, amounts to no more than waiver of objection to the rendition of judgment without findings. In the present case the attorneys for the plaintiff, who is the appellant, signed a stipulation in writing, in which it was “ agreed that findings in this case are waived.” The stipulation was not filed with the clerk until some days subsequent to the entry of judgment, but we cannot see that that circumstance alters the effect of the stipulation, which we think is to estop the plaintiff from making the objection that no findings were filed.

Judgment affirmed.

McKinstey, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 P. 98, 68 Cal. 240, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dougherty-v-friermuth-cal-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack