Vanderford v. Foster

2 P. 736, 65 Cal. 49, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 436
California Supreme Court·Decided February 12, 1884·No. No. 9,058·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The Court.

In Geary v. Simmons, 39 Cal. 224, it was held a court is justified in granting a nonsuit, after the evidence on both sides has been heard in a case where, if the motion had been denied and a verdict found for the plaintiff, it would have been set aside as not supported by the evidence. If the case' before us had gone to the jury upon the evidence in the transcript, it would have been the duty of the court to set aside a [50]*50verdict in favor of plaintiff on motion. It comes within the rule laid down in Geary v. Simmons.

We think it proper to say, however, that the practice of moving for nonsuit after the defendant’s evidence is in should rarely be resorted to. Especially is this so when, as in the case at bar, the plaintiff introduced evidence to sustain all the averments of the complaint, as against a mere trespasser, and the materiality of establishing an immediate delivery and actual and continued change of possession only appeared after the defendant had made out his affirmative defense; that he was sheriff and took the property under process, etc.

Judgment and order affirmed.

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

Vanderford v. Foster, 2 P. 736, 65 Cal. 49, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 436 (Cal. 1884).

2 P. 736 (Vanderford v. Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Croll v. Moorman
206 P. 1003 (California Supreme Court, 1922)
Estate of Campbell
189 P. 812 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Nicholson v. Scioto Valley Traction Co.
14 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 177 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 1912)
Paolini v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.
97 P. 1130 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)
Bohn v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
91 P. 115 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Estate of Morey v. Wells
82 P. 57 (California Supreme Court, 1905)
Fagundes v. Central Pacific Railroad
3 L.R.A. 824 (California Supreme Court, 1889)