Walker v. Sedgwick

5 Cal. 192
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1855·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

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

Bryan, J., concurred.

The parties agree by stipulation to submit this case upon the single point, that the Judge below failed to find the facts and conclusions of law.

This is a case in Chancery to enforce a vender’s lien for the purchase money. In Chancery cases this Court has to examine the facts, and is not concluded by the findings of the Chancellor. The statute regulation does not therefore apply in such cases, because it would be utterly fruitless and lex non cogit ad vana. The statute was intended for cases in which the trial by the Judge supplied the place of a trial by jury, where the parties consent to it; and we have long ago determined that in Chancery cases the parties were not entitled to trial by jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Walker v. Sedgwick, 5 Cal. 192 (Cal. 1855).

5 Cal. 192 (Walker v. Sedgwick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Proctor v. Arakelian
280 P. 368 (California Supreme Court, 1929)
Miller v. Thompson
229 P. 696 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1924)
Shapira v. D'Arcy
62 N.E. 412 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Sharon v. Sharon
7 P. 456 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Lyons v. Lyons
18 Cal. 447 (California Supreme Court, 1861)
Duff v. Fisher
15 Cal. 375 (California Supreme Court, 1860)