Elze v. Ohm

California Supreme Court

Elze v. Ohm

1 Cal. Unrep. 252

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 27, 1865

DocketNo. 753

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 252 (Elze v. Ohm) 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

Elze v. Ohm, 1 Cal. Unrep. 252 (Cal. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWYER, J.

We have examined the evidence in this ease, and are satisfied with the finding of the court to the effect that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant on the 30th of September, 1857, was designed to be an absolute sale, and not a mortgage.

The objection to allowing the amendment setting up the statute of limitations without imposing the terms insisted on by the plaintiff, conceding it to be valid for the purposes of the decision, became immaterial upon the view taken by the court on the main question of fact in the case. The evidence admitted under objection, if erroneously admitted, could not have influenced the findings of the court. The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shafter, J.; Currey, J.

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

SAWYER, J.

We have examined the evidence in this ease, and are satisfied with the finding of the court to the effect that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant on the 30th of September, 1857, was designed to be an absolute sale, and not a mortgage.

The objection to allowing the amendment setting up the statute of limitations without imposing the terms insisted on by the plaintiff, conceding it to be valid for the purposes of the decision, became immaterial upon the view taken by the court on the main question of fact in the case. The evidence admitted under objection, if erroneously admitted, could not have influenced the findings of the court. The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shafter, J.; Currey, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elze-v-ohm-cal-1865.