Ladd v. Tully

51 Cal. 277
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1876
DocketNo. 5091
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 277 (Ladd v. Tully) 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
Ladd v. Tully, 51 Cal. 277 (Cal. 1876).

Opinion

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

The court finds, “That all the material facts set forth in the complaint are true,” and thereupon entered a judgment for the plaintiff. The finding is insufficient and will not support the judgment. While it is permissible in the findings to refer to a pleading, as for example, that a note or mortgage set forth in the complaint was executed by the party at the time therein alleged, yet in such cases “the reference should be distinct and pointed, so as to leave no doubt as to what particular facts are intended.” (Breeze v. Doyle, 19 Cal. 101.) In the same case it is said that the true test of the sufficiency of a finding is whether it would answer if presented by a jury in the form of a special verdict. Nor is a finding good which states only general conclusions, leaving it doubtful what particular facts were established. (Polhemus v. Carpenter, 42 Cal. 375.) Tested by these rules, the finding in this case is insufficient. The finding is that all the “material” facts stated in the complaint are true. But we have no means of determining what facts the court deemed “material,” and have no information from the findings on this point. So loose a method of finding the facts cannot be tolerated, and would lead to the most serious perplexities.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

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

Related

Imperial Water Co. No. 1 v. Imperial Irrigation District
217 P. 88 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
McAuliffe v. McAuliffe
199 P. 1071 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Stampfli v. Stampfli
199 P. 829 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Haller v. Yolo Water & Power Co.
167 P. 197 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
American National Bank v. Donnellan
148 P. 188 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Holt Manufacturing Co. v. Collins
97 P. 516 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Musselman v. Musselman
73 P. 824 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Krug v. F. A. Lux Brewing Co.
61 P. 1125 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Abrahamson v. Lamberson
71 N.W. 676 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1897)
Sharp v. Frank
41 P. 860 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Warren v. Robinson
12 P. 265 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Cassidy v. Cassidy
63 Cal. 352 (California Supreme Court, 1883)
Butte County v. Boydstun
2 Cal. Unrep. 151 (California Supreme Court, 1883)
Hardenberg v. Hardenberg
54 Cal. 591 (California Supreme Court, 1880)
Harlan v. Ely
55 Cal. 340 (California Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ladd-v-tully-cal-1876.