Skirm v. Farrand

California Supreme Court

Skirm v. Farrand

18 Cal. 314, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 185

DecidedJuly 1, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Cal. 314 (Skirm v. Farrand) 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

Skirm v. Farrand, 18 Cal. 314, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 185 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

It is apparent that no such construction can be given to the Act of 1860, amendatory of the Practice Act, as the appellant contends for; by such construction, the forty-sixth section and the sixty-fifth section would be in irreconcilable conflict. The object of the amendment to the forty-sixth section was to provide for a replication introduced under the act; and the object of the amendment .to section sixty-five was to provide for the effect of matters in the -replication; but it was not designed to work a change in the character of the answers, or to abolish the distinction as between those verified and those not verified. The omission of the words “ when it is verified,” in the amendment to section sixty-five, is a mere clerical misprision, readily corrected by reference to the whole body of the original act and .amendments.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

It is apparent that no such construction can be given to the Act of 1860, amendatory of the Practice Act, as the appellant contends for; by such construction, the forty-sixth section and the sixty-fifth section would be in irreconcilable conflict. The object of the amendment to the forty-sixth section was to provide for a replication introduced under the act; and the object of the amendment .to section sixty-five was to provide for the effect of matters in the -replication; but it was not designed to work a change in the character of the answers, or to abolish the distinction as between those verified and those not verified. The omission of the words “ when it is verified,” in the amendment to section sixty-five, is a mere clerical misprision, readily corrected by reference to the whole body of the original act and .amendments.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Cal. 314, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skirm-v-farrand-cal-1861.