Mayo v. City of Sacramento

California Supreme Court

Mayo v. City of Sacramento

1 Cal. Unrep. 646

California Supreme Court·Decided October 19, 1870·No. No. 1984·Published

Opinion

CROCKETT, J.

— 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.

We concur: Wallace, J.; Rhodes, C. J.

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

CROCKETT, J.

— 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.

We concur: Wallace, J.; Rhodes, C. J.

Mayo v. City of Sacramento, 1 Cal. Unrep. 646 (Cal. 1870).

Pincite

1 Cal. Unrep. 646 (Mayo v. City of Sacramento) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related