Hanson v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Hanson v. Smith

1 Cal. Unrep. 261

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 5, 1866

DocketNo. 781

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 261 (Hanson v. Smith) 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

Hanson v. Smith, 1 Cal. Unrep. 261 (Cal. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAFTER, J.

The plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment payable in gold coin. The contract was in every material particular like that sought to be enforced in Reese v. Stearnes, 29 Cal. 273, decided at the October term, 1865.

Judgment was taken against the defendants by default, entered by the direction of the plaintiff’s attorney. The [262]*262counsel fees, the amount paid for taxes, together with the interest thereon, were improperly included in the judgment as being in excess of the relief prayed for in the complaint: Lattimer v. Ryan, 20 Cal. 628; Grautier v. English, Oct. Term, 1865.

The court below is directed to modify the judgment so as to conform it to the views expressed in this opinion. Further ordered that appellant recover his costs of appeal.

We concur: Sawyer, J.; Sanderson, J.; Rhodes, J.; Currey, C. J. '

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

SHAFTER, J.

The plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment payable in gold coin. The contract was in every material particular like that sought to be enforced in Reese v. Stearnes, 29 Cal. 273, decided at the October term, 1865.

Judgment was taken against the defendants by default, entered by the direction of the plaintiff’s attorney. The [262]*262counsel fees, the amount paid for taxes, together with the interest thereon, were improperly included in the judgment as being in excess of the relief prayed for in the complaint: Lattimer v. Ryan, 20 Cal. 628; Grautier v. English, Oct. Term, 1865.

The court below is directed to modify the judgment so as to conform it to the views expressed in this opinion. Further ordered that appellant recover his costs of appeal.

We concur: Sawyer, J.; Sanderson, J.; Rhodes, J.; Currey, C. J. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-smith-cal-1866.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack