Kelly v. Bradbury
37 P. 872, 104 Cal. 237, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 887
Opinion
It appears from tbe record that tbe verdict of tbe jury is assailed by the specifications, on tbe ground of tbe insufficiency of tbe evidence to support it.
There is no brief on file by respondent, nor was tbe case orally argued in his behalf; it therefore follows, on the authority of Richter v. Fresno etc. Co., 101 Cal. 582, and Davis v. Hart, 103 Cal. 530, that the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed.
So ordered
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kelly v. Bradbury, 37 P. 872, 104 Cal. 237, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 887 (Cal. 1894).
37 P. 872 (Kelly v. Bradbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Duisenberg-Wichman & Co. v. Johnson
7 P.2d 1081 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Lutz v. Merchants Nat. Bank
177 P. 158 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Bullock v. Bullock
155 P. 1009 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)
Lawrence v. Johnson
63 P. 176 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Mountain Tunnel Gravel Mining Co. v. Bryan
43 P. 410 (California Supreme Court, 1896)