Redman v. Gulnac

5 Cal. 148
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 148 (Redman v. Gulnac) 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
Redman v. Gulnac, 5 Cal. 148 (Cal. 1855).

Opinion

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

Bryan, J., concurred.

It was error, after the jury had retired, to allow them to come into Court and instruct them, in the absence of the parties or their counsels.

Such instructions will be considered important if the contrary is not shown, from the very fact that the jury have asked for them. The certificate of the Judge of the Court below is a sufficient authentication of the statement. An appellant cannot be defeated of his rights by any such proceeding. If the respondent did not think proper to file amendments, or the Judge to correct the statement, the certificate of that fact by the Judge is all that is necessary.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and new trial granted.

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

Related

Addy v. Stewart
207 P.2d 498 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1949)
Tice v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
96 P.2d 1022 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Nelson v. Southern Pacific Co.
67 P.2d 682 (California Supreme Court, 1937)
State v. Meagher
49 Mo. App. 571 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Cornish v. Graff
43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 160 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
Doyle v. United States
10 F. 269 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1881)
Chapman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
26 Wis. 295 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Cal. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redman-v-gulnac-cal-1855.