Green & Middlesworth v. Prettyman

17 Cal. 401
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1861
StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cal. 401 (Green & Middlesworth v. Prettyman) 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
Green & Middlesworth v. Prettyman, 17 Cal. 401 (Cal. 1861).

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

The Court erred in giving the second instruction asked by the defendant. This instruction, taken in connection with the facts of the record, did not place the doctrine of equitable estoppel correctly before the jury. We have given the true rule in the case of Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., (14 Cal. 366) and in other cases; and a reference to those decisions will enable the Court on the next trial to instruct the jury, rightly upon this subject.

The other points do not seem to be well taken, but the statement is so imperfect that we do not think it advisable to pass definitely upon them.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Related

Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.
14 Cal. 279 (California Supreme Court, 1859)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Cal. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-middlesworth-v-prettyman-cal-1861.