Feely v. Shirley

California Supreme Court

Feely v. Shirley

43 Cal. 369

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1872

DocketNo. 2,784

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 Cal. 369 (Feely v. Shirley) 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

Feely v. Shirley, 43 Cal. 369 (Cal. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Niles, J.:

The ruling of the Court in striking out a portion of the answer cannot be reviewed upon this appeal, since it forms no part of the judgment roll. (Dimmick v. Campbell, 31 Cal. 238; Moore v. Del. Valle, 28 Cal. 174.)

The motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The breaking of the flume was distinctly alleged in the complaint, and the answer took issue upon the wrongful character of the act merely, but did not deny its commission. The breaking was, therefore, an admitted fact; and, conceding the plaintiff’s light of property in the flume, no proof of [371]*371the breaking was requisite to establish his right to recover at least nominal damages.

The testimony in the case was conflicting, and there appears sufficient testimony to support the findings of the Court upon all the issues made by the pleadings.

Judgment and ordér affirmed.

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

By the Court,

Niles, J.:

The ruling of the Court in striking out a portion of the answer cannot be reviewed upon this appeal, since it forms no part of the judgment roll. (Dimmick v. Campbell, 31 Cal. 238; Moore v. Del. Valle, 28 Cal. 174.)

The motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The breaking of the flume was distinctly alleged in the complaint, and the answer took issue upon the wrongful character of the act merely, but did not deny its commission. The breaking was, therefore, an admitted fact; and, conceding the plaintiff’s light of property in the flume, no proof of [371]*371the breaking was requisite to establish his right to recover at least nominal damages.

The testimony in the case was conflicting, and there appears sufficient testimony to support the findings of the Court upon all the issues made by the pleadings.

Judgment and ordér affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Cal. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feely-v-shirley-cal-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack