Himmelman v. Booth

California Supreme Court

Himmelman v. Booth

53 Cal. 50

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1878

DocketNo. 5375

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Cal. 50 (Himmelman v. Booth) 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

Himmelman v. Booth, 53 Cal. 50 (Cal. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court :

It was necessary in this case that the plaintiff, or some person in his behalf, should “ publicly demand payment on the premises assessed.” One of the grounds upon which the plaintiff was nonsuited was that the demand testified to by the witness Tobleman was insufficient, and upon looking into the record, and considering the circumstances attending the supposed demand, we are unable to say that the Court below committed an error in holding the demand insufficient.

• Judgment and order affirmed.

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

By the Court :

It was necessary in this case that the plaintiff, or some person in his behalf, should “ publicly demand payment on the premises assessed.” One of the grounds upon which the plaintiff was nonsuited was that the demand testified to by the witness Tobleman was insufficient, and upon looking into the record, and considering the circumstances attending the supposed demand, we are unable to say that the Court below committed an error in holding the demand insufficient.

• Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Cal. 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/himmelman-v-booth-cal-1878.