Primm v. Gray

California Supreme Court

Primm v. Gray

10 Cal. 522

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] founded 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] founded 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.

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

Pincite

10 Cal. 522 (Primm v. Gray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related