Kritzner v. Warner

California Supreme Court

Kritzner v. Warner

4 Cal. 232

DecidedJuly 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Cal. 232 (Kritzner v. Warner) 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

Kritzner v. Warner, 4 Cal. 232 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.

The Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendants. The contract declared upon

[233]*233was joint, and if Warner was not a party to it, he, [233] at least, could not be *liable. Nor would' the reception of money by Warner, on account of the work done, be sufficient to fix his liability. It would be, at most, a mere circumstance, which should be left to the jury, tending to show that he may have been a party to the contract, if there was any controversy on that point.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.

The Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendants. The contract declared upon

[233]*233was joint, and if Warner was not a party to it, he, [233] at least, could not be *liable. Nor would' the reception of money by Warner, on account of the work done, be sufficient to fix his liability. It would be, at most, a mere circumstance, which should be left to the jury, tending to show that he may have been a party to the contract, if there was any controversy on that point.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cal. 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kritzner-v-warner-cal-1854.