Nelson v. Lemmon

10 Cal. 49, 1858 Cal. LEXIS 185
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Field J., concurring.

[50] In this case appellant assigns as error the refusal of the Court to give certain instructions, but the record contains no statement of the evidence to show that the instructions asked had any relation to the facts proven.

In White v. Wentworth, (3 Cal., 246,) we held : All intendments must he in favor of sustaining the judgments of Courts of original jurisdiction, and to disturb such judgment, it is not sufficient that error may have intervened, but it must be affirmatively shown by the record. Therefore, the naked directions of a Court, unaccompanied with any statement of facts, can not satisfy us of substantial error, although some of the directions may not be in consonance with the rules of law. They, may be in reference to the facts, merely abstract, or only detrimental to the party not complaining of error, or totally inapt to mislead the jury.”

This rule applies with much greater force to the refusal of the Court to give instructions.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Nelson v. Lemmon, 10 Cal. 49, 1858 Cal. LEXIS 185 (Cal. 1858).

10 Cal. 49 (Nelson v. Lemmon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morrison v. Pierce
276 P. 306 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1929)
Billups v. Utah Canal Enlargement & Extension Co.
63 P. 713 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1901)
Maddox v. York
54 S.W. 24 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1899)
Frost v. Grizzly Bluff Creamery Co.
36 P. 929 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Fulton v. Earhart
4 Or. 61 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1870)
People v. Tilton
37 Cal. 614 (California Supreme Court, 1869)