Jeffreys v. Hancock

California Supreme Court

Jeffreys v. Hancock

57 Cal. 646

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1881

DocketNo. 7,417

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 57 Cal. 646 (Jeffreys v. Hancock) 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

Jeffreys v. Hancock, 57 Cal. 646 (Cal. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court:

This action was brought to recover the sum of $710, claimed by the plaintiff to be due him from defendant for services rendered, and for board paid by him under a contract with the defendant. The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict was rendered for the sum of $683.

Two points were made on the appeal: First, that the verdict [647]*647is not sustained by the evidence ; and, second, that the Court erred in striking out and excluding evidence under defendant’s cross-complaint.

In answer to the first point it is only necessary to say that there was sufficient evidence in support of plaintiff’s claim to justify the verdict; and so far as the cross-complaint is concerned, we need only remark that the matters therein contained constituted no defense or counter-claim (Code Civ. Proc. § 438), or matter of cross-complaint (Code Civ. Proc. § 442), to plaintiff’s action.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

The Court:

This action was brought to recover the sum of $710, claimed by the plaintiff to be due him from defendant for services rendered, and for board paid by him under a contract with the defendant. The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict was rendered for the sum of $683.

Two points were made on the appeal: First, that the verdict [647]*647is not sustained by the evidence ; and, second, that the Court erred in striking out and excluding evidence under defendant’s cross-complaint.

In answer to the first point it is only necessary to say that there was sufficient evidence in support of plaintiff’s claim to justify the verdict; and so far as the cross-complaint is concerned, we need only remark that the matters therein contained constituted no defense or counter-claim (Code Civ. Proc. § 438), or matter of cross-complaint (Code Civ. Proc. § 442), to plaintiff’s action.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Cal. 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffreys-v-hancock-cal-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack