Phelan v. Ruiz

15 Cal. 90
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 Cal. 90 (Phelan v. Ruiz) 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.

Bluebook
Phelan v. Ruiz, 15 Cal. 90 (Cal. 1860).

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

The only error assigned by the appellant is the refusal of the Court to grant a new trial, when the motion was made by the plaintiff, and the defendant consented to the granting of it.

But this refusal is not necessarily an error. After a cause has been once fully tried and determined, the parties have not an arbitrary dis-' cretion to renew the litigation as, and to any extent, they may please. They cannot dispose of the time of the Court at their own pleasure. If so, Courts of Justice might he turned into Moot Courts, for the mere amusement of lawyers concerned in a trial. When a Court sees that a case has been fully heard and properly disposed of, it may, in its discretion, refuse to try it over, although the parties consent to the retrial.

Besides, it seems that this was an equity case, and there may have been no necessity for a new trial, as upon application to the Court, upon the pleadings and facts before it, the proper decree might have been rendered, notwithstanding the verdict; or if refused, the error corrected by appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Kenney v. Seaboabd Air Line Railway Co.
80 S.E. 1078 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Cal. 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phelan-v-ruiz-cal-1860.