Lorraine v. Long
6 Cal. 452
Opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
Although a party may set up an equitable defence to an action at law, his remedy is not confined to that proceeding. He may let the judgment go at law and file his bill in equity for relief. Our practice, while it enlarges the field of remedy, does not take away pre-existing remedies by implication. «
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lorraine v. Long, 6 Cal. 452 (Cal. 1856).
6 Cal. 452 (Lorraine v. Long) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Citizens Utilities Co. v. Superior Court
56 Cal. App. 3d 399 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Hathaway Baking Co.
28 N.E.2d 425 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Johnson v. Sun Realty Co.
32 P.2d 393 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Engel v. Rothman
30 Ohio C.C. Dec. 270 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1916)
Witte v. Storm
139 S.W. 384 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
McMahan v. Whelan
75 P. 715 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1904)
Allis v. Hall
56 A. 637 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1904)
Golson v. Dunlap
14 P. 576 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Witte v. Lockwood
39 Ohio St. (N.S.) 141 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1883)
Hill v. Cooper
6 Or. 181 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1876)
Hough v. Waters
30 Cal. 309 (California Supreme Court, 1866)
Hunt v. City of San Francisco
11 Cal. 250 (California Supreme Court, 1858)