Durkee v. Moulton

California Supreme Court

Durkee v. Moulton

65 P. 469, 6 Cal. Unrep. 699

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1901

DocketL. A. No. 890

StatusPublished

This text of 65 P. 469 (Durkee v. Moulton) 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

Durkee v. Moulton, 65 P. 469, 6 Cal. Unrep. 699 (Cal. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, C.

Action for trespass on plaintiff’s lands by defendant’s sheep. The plaintiff recovered $350 damages, with costs. It is claimed there was no evidence of trespass by any sheep of defendant, or that plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $350, or in any sum. The evidence seems to establish the trespasses complained of, beyond doubt, and plaintiff testified as to the nature and amount of the damage thereby caused. His estimate may have been excessive, and it was in fact cut down by the court, but it cannot be said there was no evidence to support the finding. I advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

We concur: Haynes, C.; Chipman, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

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

SMITH, C.

Action for trespass on plaintiff’s lands by defendant’s sheep. The plaintiff recovered $350 damages, with costs. It is claimed there was no evidence of trespass by any sheep of defendant, or that plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $350, or in any sum. The evidence seems to establish the trespasses complained of, beyond doubt, and plaintiff testified as to the nature and amount of the damage thereby caused. His estimate may have been excessive, and it was in fact cut down by the court, but it cannot be said there was no evidence to support the finding. I advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

We concur: Haynes, C.; Chipman, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 P. 469, 6 Cal. Unrep. 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durkee-v-moulton-cal-1901.