Head v. Barney

California Supreme Court

Head v. Barney

1 Cal. Unrep. 78

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1859

DocketNo. 2450

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 78 (Head v. Barney) 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

Head v. Barney, 1 Cal. Unrep. 78 (Cal. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

BALDWIN, J.-

— There is no statement of facts in this case. The referee was directed to report a judgment as to the amount in Receiver Barney’s hands. He reported judgment for the sum of three hundred dollars and upward and then reported a finding in the alternative as to another sum; leaving the court to determine whether judgment should be entered for this sum. Neither in the report nor elsewhere do we see enough to enable us to judge whether the court erred in refusing to give judgment for this latter sum.

We cannot, in tbe absence of a statement, determine this matter.

The costs, if not in the discretion of the court on this issue with the receiver, seem to be disposed of by a stipulation in the record providing that each party should pay his own costs. Nor is it shown the costs are sufficient in amount to give this court jurisdiction.

The judgment is affirmed.

I concur: Field, C. J.

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

BALDWIN, J.-

— There is no statement of facts in this case. The referee was directed to report a judgment as to the amount in Receiver Barney’s hands. He reported judgment for the sum of three hundred dollars and upward and then reported a finding in the alternative as to another sum; leaving the court to determine whether judgment should be entered for this sum. Neither in the report nor elsewhere do we see enough to enable us to judge whether the court erred in refusing to give judgment for this latter sum.

We cannot, in tbe absence of a statement, determine this matter.

The costs, if not in the discretion of the court on this issue with the receiver, seem to be disposed of by a stipulation in the record providing that each party should pay his own costs. Nor is it shown the costs are sufficient in amount to give this court jurisdiction.

The judgment is affirmed.

I concur: Field, C. J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/head-v-barney-cal-1859.