Tinney v. Endicott

California Supreme Court

Tinney v. Endicott

5 Cal. 102

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 102 (Tinney v. Endicott) 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

Tinney v. Endicott, 5 Cal. 102 (Cal. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the

[103]*103Court requires counsel “to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer, before the argument is closed, to the jury.” But it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.

For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the

[103]*103Court requires counsel “to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer, before the argument is closed, to the jury.” But it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.

For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinney-v-endicott-cal-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack