Wallace v. Miller

52 Cal. 655
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1878·No. No. 5732·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

cited Gibbs v. Swift, 12 Cush. 393; Lawrence v. Bullon, 37 Cal. 518; Corbin v. Liv[656] ingston, 14 Wend. 619 ; Schenk v. Evoy, 24 Cal. 110; Gales v. Salmon, 35 Cal. 576; Kimball v. Semple, 25 Cal. 452; Ellis v. Icans, 26 Cal. 272.

Francis E. Spencer, for Respondent.

By the Court :

It is ordered that " the judgment herein be and the same is hereby modified by the striking therefrom, wherever they occur, the words “ one twenty-eighth part,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ seven hundred and fifty twenty-one thousand three hundred and seventy-sevenths,” and in other respects the judgment and order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, are affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

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

Wallace v. Miller, 52 Cal. 655 (Cal. 1878).

52 Cal. 655 (Wallace v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gray v. Producers' Oil Co.
227 S.W. 240 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Waterhouse v. Gallup
178 S.W. 773 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Schoonover v. Tyner
84 P. 124 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)
Fisher v. Wailehua
16 Haw. 154 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1904)
Dohoney v. Womack
19 S.W. 883 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1892)
Cullen v. Sprigg
23 P. 222 (California Supreme Court, 1890)