Pinkham & McDonough v. McFarland & Elrod

5 Cal. 137
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 137 (Pinkham & McDonough v. McFarland & Elrod) 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
Pinkham & McDonough v. McFarland & Elrod, 5 Cal. 137 (Cal. 1855).

Opinion

Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion Of the Court.

Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

The endorsements of the notes sued on are not denied with sufficient certainty by the answer; if they were, the defendants ought to have objected to their introduction in evidence.

[138]*138As no such objection was made, the plaintiffs were warranted in supposing it was waived, and the subsequent motion for nonsuit was a surprise upon them which the Court should have relieved, by admitting further testimony.

The power of opening tip a case after it has been once submitted, rests in the sound discretion of the Court hearing the cause, which we will not as a general rule attempt to revise. In this case, however, the plaintiffs have beejMfc^l by the acts of the defendants, and justice requires that a ne^^HBmould be granted*

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass
30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588 (California Court of Appeal, 2005)
Marks v. Munson
149 P. 440 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1915)
McLeod v. Lee
28 P. 124 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1882)
Poorman v. D. O. Mills & Co.
95 Am. Dec. 90 (California Supreme Court, 1868)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Cal. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkham-mcdonough-v-mcfarland-elrod-cal-1855.