Primm v. Gray

California Supreme Court

Primm v. Gray

10 Cal. 522

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 Cal. 522 (Primm v. Gray) 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

Primm v. Gray, 10 Cal. 522 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Field, J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The first and second assignments of error are not supported by the record.

The third is not well taken. To support a plea in abatement [523]*523founded on the pendency of a prior action, it is necessary to show that process was issued in such action. (See Weaver v. Conger, 10 Cal.)

The fourth is not supported by the record. Upon the whole, it appears that the appeal was taken merely for delay, and the judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

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

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

Field, J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The first and second assignments of error are not supported by the record.

The third is not well taken. To support a plea in abatement [523]*523founded on the pendency of a prior action, it is necessary to show that process was issued in such action. (See Weaver v. Conger, 10 Cal.)

The fourth is not supported by the record. Upon the whole, it appears that the appeal was taken merely for delay, and the judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Cal. 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/primm-v-gray-cal-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack