Garfield v. Knights Ferry & Table Mountain Water Co. No. 1

California Supreme Court

Garfield v. Knights Ferry & Table Mountain Water Co. No. 1

1 Cal. Unrep. 93

DecidedMarch 1, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 93 (Garfield v. Knights Ferry & Table Mountain Water Co. No. 1) 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

Garfield v. Knights Ferry & Table Mountain Water Co. No. 1, 1 Cal. Unrep. 93 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

BALDWIN, J.

The finding in this case is in the nature of a special verdict. It is that the work was done at the instance of Kappelman & Co., who were the agents of the defendant, the defendant being a corporation. It was claimed by the defendant that though Kappelman & Co. were the agents, they were also contractors* and that they employed the plaintiff in this last capacity. There is no necessary inconsistency between a man being an agent and his contracting in an individual capacity, and the very question here was, as to what capacity Kappelman & Co. acted in making this contract. The rule is that enough must be found by a special' verdict or finding, when that is relied on as the basis of a judgment, to show in and of itself a legal conclusion of liability. This was not done here. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment, that the issue may be directly and explicitly found.

We concur: Field, C. J.; Cope, J.

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

BALDWIN, J.

The finding in this case is in the nature of a special verdict. It is that the work was done at the instance of Kappelman & Co., who were the agents of the defendant, the defendant being a corporation. It was claimed by the defendant that though Kappelman & Co. were the agents, they were also contractors* and that they employed the plaintiff in this last capacity. There is no necessary inconsistency between a man being an agent and his contracting in an individual capacity, and the very question here was, as to what capacity Kappelman & Co. acted in making this contract. The rule is that enough must be found by a special' verdict or finding, when that is relied on as the basis of a judgment, to show in and of itself a legal conclusion of liability. This was not done here. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment, that the issue may be directly and explicitly found.

We concur: Field, C. J.; Cope, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfield-v-knights-ferry-table-mountain-water-co-no-1-cal-1861.