Mayo v. City of Sacramento
This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 646 (Mayo v. City of Sacramento) 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.
Opinion
— It is clear that the court had authority to amend the judgment entered on the 18th of June, 1868, so as to make it conform to the findings, and to the order of the court directing the judgment to be entered: Swain v. Naglee, 19 Cal. 127; Morrison v. Dapman, 3 Cal. 255; Hegeler v. Hinckell, 27 Cal. 492; Casement v. Ringgold, 28 Cal. 335; Leviston v. Swan, 33 Cal. 480; Atkins v. Sawyer, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 353. And I think it is equally clear that the judgment as amended and the relief granted thereby were within the issues, and were warranted by the pleadings. I am, therefore, of opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed.
Ordered accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Cal. Unrep. 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-v-city-of-sacramento-cal-1870.