People v. Forbes

51 Cal. 628
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1877·No. No. 4712·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

First. The answer of the defendant set up certain affirmative defenses to the action, but did not purport to deny any allegation contained in the complaint. The only sup[629]*629posed finding of facts is contained in the decree, where it is said by way of mere recital as follows: “And it further appearing that said complaint was duly verified, the court finds all the facts as stated in said complaint.” -Now in view of the circumstance that the defense did not rest either in whole or in part upon a denial of the allegations of the complaint, but entirely upon the new matter set up in the answer, a finding of “all the facts as stated in the complaint ” was not a disposition of the issues of fact involved in the case.

Second. We held here.(in Mulcahy v. Glazier, ante, p. 626), that if the record were entirely silent upon the question as to whether there had been a waiver of the finding of facts, we would presume in aid of the judgment below that such waiver had occurred. But it is clear that in view of the finding here made, and appearing in the record, no such presumption of a waiver of findings can be indulged.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. B-emittitur forthwith.

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

People v. Forbes, 51 Cal. 628 (Cal. 1877).

51 Cal. 628 (People v. Forbes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weightman v. Hadley
292 P.2d 909 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Wilcox v. Sway
160 P.2d 154 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
C. I. T. Corporation v. Elliott
159 P.2d 891 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1945)
Hillyard v. District Court of Cache County
249 P. 806 (Utah Supreme Court, 1926)
Riley v. Loma Vista Ranch Co.
89 P. 849 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Dillon Implement Co. v. Cleaveland
88 P. 670 (Utah Supreme Court, 1906)
Gull River Lumber Co. v. School District No. 39
48 N.W. 427 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1890)