Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford

13 Cal. 637, 1859 Cal. LEXIS 221
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 13 Cal. 637 (Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford) 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
Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford, 13 Cal. 637, 1859 Cal. LEXIS 221 (Cal. 1859).

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—

Terry, C. J. concurring.

The error assigned here is, that the Court refused to permit the plaintiff to take a nonsuit after the testimony for plaintiff and defendants was closed. No counter claim seems to have been made in this case by defendants. By the 148th Section of the Practice Act, it is provided “that the plaintiff may, at any time before trial, upon the payment of costs, if a counter claim has not been made,” take a nonsuit. By trial here, is meant the determination or finding in the case. We do not understand that the plaintiff is bound to tender the costs before being entitled to be nonsuited; for the costs cannot be at the moment known or computed. But this proviso was only meant to declare that the effect of the nonsuit is to subject him to costs. At common law, the right of the plaintiff was to take a nonsuit at any time before the jury retired, and we do not construe the statute as altering the rule. (3 Ch. Genl. Pr. 910.)

The judgment on the verdict is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the Court below to enter judgment of nonsuit as of the 8th November, 1858.

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

Related

Engleman v. Green
270 P.2d 127 (California Court of Appeal, 1954)
London v. Morrison
222 P.2d 941 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Molen v. Denning & Clark Livestock Co.
50 P.2d 9 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1935)
Patterson v. Superior Court
30 P.2d 68 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Hough Et Ux. v. Reserve Gold Mining Co.
274 P. 192 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1929)
Strupelle v. Strupelle
211 P. 248 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Rosen v. 981 Union Avenue Corp.
112 Misc. 492 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)
MacDermot v. Grant
184 P. 396 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. Horne
203 S.W. 24 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1918)
Danforth v. Danforth
166 P. 127 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1917)
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Trueman
112 P. 210 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1910)
Miller v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
76 P. 691 (Montana Supreme Court, 1904)
Hopkins v. Superior Court
69 P. 299 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Goldtree v. Spreckels
67 P. 1091 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Beals, Torrey & Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
74 N.W. 54 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Westbay v. Gray
48 P. 800 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
State ex rel. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad v. Scott
22 Neb. 628 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1888)
Denver & R. G. R'y Co. v. Cobley
9 Colo. 152 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1886)
Sheldon v. Gunn
56 Cal. 582 (California Supreme Court, 1880)
Burns v. Rodefer
15 Nev. 59 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Cal. 637, 1859 Cal. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-ditch-co-v-bradford-cal-1859.