Haynes v. Meeks

California Supreme Court

Haynes v. Meeks

1 Cal. Unrep. 79

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1859

DocketNo. 2591

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 79 (Haynes v. Meeks) 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

Haynes v. Meeks, 1 Cal. Unrep. 79 (Cal. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

COPE, J.

— This is an action of ejectment. The cause was tried in the court below without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff [80]*80appealed to this court, and the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. A judgment for the plaintiff was thereupon rendered by the court below upon the facts as originally found. The defendant appeals, and claims that under the judgment of this court he was entitled to a new trial. This point is certainly well taken. The judgment in its original form contained a specific direction to the court below to render a judgment for the plaintiff upon the facts found, but it was afterward modified and this direction omitted. The intention clearly was that the case should be retried upon its merits.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

I concur: Field, C. 'J.

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

COPE, J.

— This is an action of ejectment. The cause was tried in the court below without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff [80]*80appealed to this court, and the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. A judgment for the plaintiff was thereupon rendered by the court below upon the facts as originally found. The defendant appeals, and claims that under the judgment of this court he was entitled to a new trial. This point is certainly well taken. The judgment in its original form contained a specific direction to the court below to render a judgment for the plaintiff upon the facts found, but it was afterward modified and this direction omitted. The intention clearly was that the case should be retried upon its merits.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

I concur: Field, C. 'J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-meeks-cal-1859.